Home | About | Donate

Going Offshore in the 2016 Election Campaign


#1

Going Offshore in the 2016 Election Campaign

Nomi Prins

There’s a pile of money hiding offshore. It’s true that jobs are also leaving the United States because American companies find it convenient to cut labor costs by moving manufacturing abroad, the economic issue you’re hearing most about in this election season.


#2

Thank you for the impressive research and related findings, Ms. Prins.

When one factors in the net loss contingent upon all of these off-shored tax evasion strategies and the costs of war, one understands why there's so little money available for what matters most: a decent quality of life for human beings of every color.

Let's be real here: As Thomas Friedman once asserted, "There could be no McDonalds without McDonnell-Douglas." In other words, corporations are privileged to do their worldwide trade, sales, and deals because there is military muscle backing them up.

So here's my not so modest proposal: Let the corporations who go about the world seeking labor, resources, and profits... PAY FOR the military protection. After all, it mostly exists to support their enterprises.

Let THEM utilize all of this 7.6 trillion in hidden funds to pay for their OWN policing forces. Then the 53% of the U.S. treasury allocation typically used as THEIR protection money might instead be used to rebuild the nation's failing infrastructure, invest in the children (students/citizens) of tomorrow, fund greener energy systems AND the arts, and improve the psychological state (and thus, health) of the nation... relieving much of the world of the Beast and its brutish ways.


#3

Bernie or Bust!


#4

Is it any wonder that Clinton has a trust problem? Another example of saying something for political gain, painting herself as a champion of reform and then doing just the opposite. At least with Trump, what you see, though sometimes fuzzy, is what you get. At least he's the obvious monster.


#5

Obama's 2008 hot air campaign left him with near zero credibility.

When Obama failed to even consider, let alone appoint Prins as his Treasury Secretary he lost all credibility.

She knows where all the bodies are buried on Wall Street and his not afraid to dig.


#8

Seems a majority of our government now works for Big Business all of them....That is why it is so difficult to make changes in the law to reign in these evil empires....and trust me they are evil in every sense of the word.


#9

Nomi's a smart cookie indeed. I kept imagining her in one of her many videos as I read this piece. The timing is brilliant!


#10

Some of the upstanding for profit businesses helped by such vital services:


#11

Letting corporations and billionaires have their own private armies doesn't seem like a particularly great idea to me. What's to stop them from dropping the charade, declaring that they don't have to pay taxes or follow the laws, and using their armies to impose their will?


#12

Thank you Nomi indeed. What thorough and exhausting research you have done. You know- we all have to wonder why would the elites not want to give back to the society who created them in the first place? Also, let's face it. Too many people actually want to BE Shillary or Trumpet. Otherwise they all would be voting for Bernie like us sane people. I like also the comment about corporations paying for the military might that guards their fortunes. How empty one must feel if money is one's whole existence, and how boring as well. Companies leave the communities which provide the labor, water and land rights as well as consumers just for a dollar. Let's see that what family values are??????


#13

I must be naive, but if I were a billionaire, I would give back to my community. Actually, giving back to community and thinking about something bigger than SELF is valued no matter how much money you have. Volunteering, and doing something just for the sake of giving without taking really makes one feel good. I suppose these people do not know what that feels like. Pity they must just be empty suits.


#14

If they have to be rescued, or cut labor forces, they they are failing companies which should never be allowed to be bailed out or traded with again. Case closed. Remember trade deals are not for us just for the so called global economy which never benefits this country and actually drives wages down by at least half. Look up NAFTA and CAFTA.


#15

Bernie yes! But let's send the illegals home. Now, we have to learn their languages and educators have to take courses to learn how to teach emerging English. However, if they are unwilling to learn or speak that won;t matter if they do not practice. Press 1 for English.


#16

Obama is not for the working people of this country, oh excuse me maybe work for the benefit of others who do not ccontribute to the economy. People who come to this country need to make a contribution not expect a hand out or expect that the people who have always lived here have to change and bow down to you. Bythe way Bernie is the only person who is in office who has actually acknowledged the tribal people here. Right on! On the other hand, it seems that Obama is more concerned about people who he wants to bring in despite Americans losing millions of jobs! Immigrants who came here decades ago did not expect people to have to learn their language- they made an effort to learn ours.


#17

Remember Obama pushing the TPP? That surely was not for our country!


#18

These people have no morals- probably were not raised with any either. Must be pretty disturbed individuals.


#19

Before Blackwater (now named something else) was "on the radar," there was a very compelling article in "Harper's Magazine" entitled, "Armies for Hire" or something along those lines.

Colorful brochures championed the services that special armed forces could supply to not exactly reluctant 3rd world dictators, and such.

The private army already exists, Sosa. Since in my view, the U.S. military works as the fist in the glove to push the agenda of corporations (and hardly makes the world safer, quite to the contrary), as I explained--let the corporations underwrite these fees the way Mafia Dons finance their own Hit men.


#20

Yes. One more result of the law of unintended consequences. Like losing the draft and getting a "professional" military. As it is there is a modicum of lip service. Give militaries over to the private corporations you are right back to the old "nobility" and their private fiefdoms (warlords). And they don't give even a fig leaf about appearances. That is what all of "privatization" is all about - total control by corporations, not whatever remains of the public. As it is, there remains the barely there, but there, chain of command, back to a civilian in charge. You can ask who is in charge of the civilian but at some point you have to have the structure in place if you are to hope to have any level of control by "us peasants and serfs."


#22

Yes, on CD’s Dave Johnson’s article “Trade Shapes Wisconsin’s Primary” I wrote:

"What Johnson failed to mention is that these corporations had the lion's share of the profits (from investments in China) but preferred to stash them overseas instead of bringing them home, as patriotic Americans ought to do.”

This is indeed a most important reason for the hardships suffered by the 99%, other than the obscene trillions spent on wars. So it’s good that there are more articles on this matter nowadays.


#24

Yes, a combination of brainwashing by the corporate-owned MSN and personal greed has caused the issues of extensive money laundering and tax evasions by the 1% to be swept under the carpet. Diversions such as “unfair trade rules” which are imposed largely by Western corporate interests are conveniently blamed on foreign entities. It is curious that even the “Left” tend to talk about, for example, the TTP only from the angle of how it might affect the US, and not how other prospective member states could be adversely affected (think of the demonstrations in Japan, the Philippines, New Zealand, etc., against the pact). It is not the case of China wanting to write the rules, as Obama alleged - that country has no power to do that though it would like to imagine it has. Nor is it the United States that is dictating the rules: the ones that are really doing it are the huge transnational corporations (owned by the 1%!!!) that have seen fit to draw up the pact’s clauses in secret, and would allow only parts of it to be publicly debated.