|
Fortune Magazine trumpets this headline that the Bush administration intends to aggressively pursue foreign investment in the U.S. According to Fortune, Bush is "hoping to demonstrate that US workers aren't globalization's great losers."
Is this a left-handed admission that US workers are, in fact, globalization's great losers?
Fortune Magazine trumpets this headline that the Bush administration
intends to aggressively pursue foreign investment in the U.S.
According to Fortune, Bush is "hoping to demonstrate that US workers
aren't globalization's great losers."
{sidebar id=1}Is this a left-handed admission that US workers are, in fact, globalization's great losers?
The headline also associates the early 2006 Dubai Ports (DP World) fiasco as leading to a "hostile" investment climate in the US that must presumably be repaired. DP World, a ports operator owned by the king of the Islamic United Arab Emirates government, sought to take over control of over 20 US ports and shipping operations on the Atlantic and Gulf seacoasts.
As The August Review noted last year, President George Bush and his cabinet members vehemently endorsed and defended the takeover. In red-faced anger, Bush even threatened to veto any legislation that sought to block the deal.
A massive public and Congressional outcry was the only thing that "sunk" the DP World deal. The globalist perpetrators backed off for awhile, still fully convinced that the resisters were the bad guys in need of being overrun.
So, a little over one year later, the "counter-attack" begins with a new Presidential initiative to encourage the selling off of American assets and the selling out of American labor.
Fortune states that the new campaign hopes to establish new American jobs. There is no suggestion that the profit made from these foreign enterprises will be immediately returning to their home countries. Fortune does admit, however,
"Still, while data compiled by the Organization for International
Investment and provided to Fortune shows the potential of foreign
investments to create jobs, they also reveal that the numbers remain
small, at least so far."
It seems incongruous that the rampant foreign colonization of the United States would be personally led by its President and his top administration officials.
|
