WORLD TRADE WAR INTENSIFIES

Ever since the brilliant Scottish engineer-economist, C.H.Douglas, discovered during his investigation of the British aircraft industry during the First World War, that the more industrialised a nation becomes, the greater the gap between total purchasing power distributed, and total prices created, it has been possible to predict with complete certainty the major inevitable results of trying to operate an economy under orthodox debt structure, both public and private, and continuous monetary inflation.

And as no developed nation can purchase its own total production, there is the ever-increasing attempt to help solve domestic economic problems by striving for a "favourable balance of trade." Economic orthodoxy teaches that it is axiomatic that a nation becomes richer by exporting more than it imports. Taken to its logical conclusion, this teaching means that if a nation exported all its production and imported nothing, it should reach the millennium!

C.H.Douglas predicted the Great Depression, starting in 1929, because he understood that financial orthodoxy teaches that the only solution to inflation, which was a reflection of the big increase in debt created to finance industrial expansion, is a credit squeeze. This is a drastic reduction in the rate of money creation by those controlling the banking system, which alone has the power to create a nation's money supply. (See The Money Trick $4 posted).

The Great Depression created more social havoc than the First World War. It created the conditions in which the collectivist virus, whether called Communism, Fascism or Nazism, flourished. The end result, as Douglas had also predicted, was the Second World War. Trade war was replaced by military conflict, with all combatants having an unlimited "export market" for the next five years: The enormous global destruction ensured that there was adequate scope for big production increases for years after the war. But the continued use of debt finance made it certain that inflation would not only continue but increase.

The League of Rights correctly predicted this and warned that all attempted anti-inflation policies were doomed to failure under orthodox financial policies. It also predicted that as more and more nations became industrialised, they would be striving to export their domestic problems. Which brings us to the present state of the world where the press headlines increasingly refer to the "WORLD TRADE WAR."

Forty years ago the military might of the U.S.A. was used to reduce Imperial Japan to a shambles. American economic strength was then used to help industrialise Japan. Now Japan increasingly threatens big sectors of American industry with a flood of exports. American Congressmen are feeling the heat as their electors insist on protection policies. Protection lobbies in the U.S.A. charge that Japan is mainly responsible for the current $US 150 billion trade deficit.
President Reagan supports free trade, but realities are forcing him to use tough language in insisting that the Japanese must open their markets to American exports. The Japanese are making polite comments but taking little action. The reality is that, under financial orthodoxy, Japan must keep striving to export, as must industrialised Taiwan, also being told by the U.S.A. that it's exports to the U.S.A. are hurting the American economy.

In spite of continuing high unemployment and restrained economic systems, Common Market countries are also striving desperately to get rid of surplus production through exports. There are mountains of food and lakes of wine, some of this being supplied to the Soviet bloc at greatly reduced prices, while exports to other countries are being heavily subsidised. This has driven the Americans to subsidise exports of their own massive surplus of wheat. These policies are having a serious effect on Australian primary producers, caught in a continuing cost-price squeeze, which is having a horrendous impact on rural Australia.

Now come reports that South Korea is gravely concerned about its "trade imbalance" with Australia. The Secretariat of the General Trade and Tariffs warns that the "recovery" of the world economy might weaken faster than expected, and stresses that it is essential that governments are prepared to reverse the growing protectionist trend.

The Reagan "conservative" Administration has, in four short years, doubled the U.S. national debt, now approaching $2 trillion (ie, $2,000,000,000,000). The Marxists are, of course, delighted, with what they call "the inherent contradictions of capitalism", which must under present financial policies move from one convulsion to even greater convulsions. The future of the world depends upon an effective exposure of those responsible for those policies as an essential preliminary to some constructive alternatives.

BEHIND THE BICENTENNIAL AUTHORITY SCANDAL

Long before Melbourne businessman, Mr. Ranald Macdonald, had resigned as a Director of the Bicentennial Authority, charging that there was a scandalous misuse of funds, close observers of the B.A. were expressing concern about the tone of the proposed celebrations in 1988. It would be instructive to learn how the former Administrator, Dr. David Armstrong, came to be appointed.

There is no evidence to suggest that Dr. Armstrong was an outstanding educational administrator. But there is evidence that he holds quite radical views on Aboriginal land rights and women's affairs. He is in the Al Grassby mould when it comes to denigrating the British origins of Australia. Dr. Armstrong may, as some claim, be slightly eccentric, but obviously not so eccentric that he was not able to leave his position with a cool hand shake of nearly half a million dollars, even this so organised that the tax was "minimised" to the point where it nearly disappeared.

Writing in The Herald, Melbourne, Mr. Donald Conway states that "Neither the authority nor Dr. Armstrong appeared to have planned any proper tribute to white courage and resourcefulness in a harsh alien continent. Hence, Dr. Armstrong's mean and tasteless remark about 'white wank' - a comment which deserves to follow him into obscurity."

The role of Prime Minister Hawke in the saga of the B.A. leaves many questions unanswered. Mr. Hawke is a great "consensus" man, who claims he works to bring people together. This is what the Bicentennial celebrations should do - unite the people around their heritage. But with only two years to go there is a sour note and confusion. And Mr. Hawke has added to the confusion, while at the same time seriously damaging his own credibility. He forced Mr. John Reid to resign as chairman of the B.A., claiming that, in essence, he had been misled by Mr. Reid about the financial settlement with Dr. Armstrong.

But on September 12th, Mr. Hawke said, "The negotiations of the terms of the settlement .... was entirely a matter between the chairman and Dr. Armstrong." But on September 19th Mr. Hawke said, "I told Mr. Reid to err on the side of generosity ...." On September 24th Mr. Reid said, "I sent him (Mr. Hawke) details of what the proposed settlement was and on several occasions ... I talked about the mechanism of payment the Prime Minister was fully aware of details of the settlement right up until the moment when I asked for approval." Mr. Hawke was later to claim that he had been misled on the question of tax Administration, and this was why he was asking for Mr. Reid's resignation. As the minimising of taxation is not illegal, it would appear that Prime Minister Hawke has concentrated on a side issue to obscure more fundamental questions.

The Bicentennial Authority has already cost the Australian taxpayers tens of millions. The problem is that, even with new management, there are members of the B.A. staff dedicated to downgrading the role of the British in developing Australia and its institutions. If the spirit of resourcefulness is still alive, it may well be that there will be an organic development by diverse groups determined that the real roots of Australia will be featured in a variety of celebrations in 1988.

BRIEF COMMENTS

Senior Liberal spokesman, Senator Fred Chaney, writing in The Australian of September 27th demonstrates the weak and hypocritical attitude of the Liberal Party towards South Africa. Chaney opens with a kind word for Malcolm Fraser's "crusade" against South Africa, then later says, "Past Liberal governments have honourable records on South Africa? Three initiatives will demonstrate that point: the negotiations of the Gleneagles agreement, the ban on Qantas flights to South Africa, and the imposition of an embargo on the export of arms and military equipment to South Africa". South Africans are not concerned about a meaningless ban on arms exports nor the silly nonsense of Qantas flying into Harare where South African airways then picks up the majority of passengers going on to South Africa.

We have reported in this issue of the On Target Bulletin that both Peru and Brazil are unable to service their enormous debts to the International Monetary Fund (I.M F.) Now comes the news that the Philippines are "heading for a confrontation" with the World Financial Body. All this confirms our already stated belief that the International Subversives are really in a hurry to get their World Government assembled and in place before they run into insoluble problems with the world economy. This would destroy the Big Idea, in due course. The I.M.F. is limiting President Marcos' financial programme aimed at countering insurgency there.

FOREIGN DEBT

According to economic forecasters - Coopers & Lybrand, W.D.Scott", Australia's overseas debt is not a major obstacle to economic growth, and that the long-term outlook for Australia's economy is bright; despite some black spots, such as unemployment, and difficulties in some Australian manufacturing industries.
Well that is their opinion: we couldn't "buy" it.

In the Sydney Morning Herald (25/9) we read that Peru may "dump" the International Monetary Fund, should there not be proper changes effected by the World Financial Body to ease this nation's debt. In our issue of On Target (August 3rd) we quoted the I.M.F. Managing Director Mr. Richard Erb who warned that all debts must be repaid! The President of Peru (Mr. Alan Garcia Perez) said "...it is either debt or democracy'. He probably doesn't realise the awful truth in his own words, himself.

We well know the growing international debt burden is driving the free world towards totalitarianism. Brazil's President, Mr. Jose Sarney, has said that, his country "will not pay its foreign debt with recession, not with unemployment nor with hunger." So where do we go from there? Who's right; who's wrong? According to one of our local "experts", foreign debt will not prevent a rosy economic future in Australia. The economic realities in Peru and Brazil are that, unless foreign debt is structured downwards, then away with democracy, and on with recession and hunger, and unemployment! Us? We'll put our money on the realities!

THE BILL OF RIGHTS

The Institute of Public Affairs (N.S.W.) has issued an analysis of the forthcoming "Bill of Rights" (forthcoming unless it can be stopped), prepared by a Victorian barrister, Mr. J.K. Bowen (we understand no relation to the present Federal Attorney General, viz., Mr. Lionel Bowen.) We cannot possibly reproduce the full analysis; those who wish to have it should write to the Institute of Public Affairs (N.S.W) 56 Young St., Sydney, 2000. The analysis is printed in booklet form, and the price is $1.00 per copy, including postage. We reproduce what space allows;

"The Background "of the Bill
"Similar Human Rights' Bills have been adopted by Warsaw Pact countries, but England, - the home of Common Law - has always rejected such devices. "On the surface, the Bill's declarations of freedoms and rights, such as freedom of expression, freedom of movement, the right of peaceful assembly, and its prohibitions against torture, slavery, and scientific experimentation upon prisoners, sound good but hopefully, you will be asking yourselves, 'why does a Human Rights Bill, containing such fine declarations of rights, "NOT work in those totalitarian countries which have such bills? The answer is that, we have strong institutions to protect our rights and freedoms in Australia. Totalitarian countries like to have 'window dressing' such as a Human Rights Bill; but behind the facade there are no institutions; such as an independent judiciary, and a democratically elected parliament to protect the rights and freedoms declared in such 'scraps of paper'.
The origins of the concepts of the Bill become more obvious when we find there is no declaration of the right to own private' property. There are no declarations of the rights of companies. There's the right to join a trade union, but not the right to refuse to join.

The Legal Operation of the Bill
"The implications of the Bill are so far reaching - not only for our Federal system, but also for Australian society generally, that in my opinion the Bill needs to be subjected to the widest possible public discussion before it is introduced into the Federal parliament by the present Government. "It should be borne in mind, whenever I mention a possible effect of the Bill in this State, that if the Bill is a valid exercise in legislative power (under the Foreign Affairs power of the Constitution) then its provisions are capable of overturning State law to the extend that any State law is inconsistent with a particular provision of the Bill. "The Bill operates and has effect as a law of the Commonwealth sub clause 9(1). This means that it over rides any inconsistent common law rule and it operates (to the extent of inconsistency) as an implied repeal of any earlier Commonwealth law (clause 11). The Bill over rides (by virtue of s.109 of the Constitution) any State laws held to be inconsistent with the Bill, including not only the laws made by state parliaments, but also the rules of common law presently in force in the States…"

There are also analyses of "The Implications of the Bill for the States", "Uncertainty As to the Operation of the Bill", "The Family", "Education", "Crime", "The Role of the Human Rights Commission", etc. We have no doubt at all the Human Rights Commission is intended to be the cutting edge of the international subversives, operating behind the facade of the United Nations, to rend and slash our traditional Australian fabric of freedom and fair play. It is distressing to witness so many ordinary Australians who, for various reasons, are intensely eager to have this happen. Some are confused; some are maddened by political ideology; some are deceived by the Humanist religion; some are power mad, and will be in anything for a shred of power; others are straight-out, conscious subversives.