Posted 11 months ago on May 24, 2013, 2:18 p.m. EST by quantumystic
from Memphis, TN
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
" I was following, of course, the tragedies going on in Bangladesh. Coach and other high-end manufacturers are moving out of China to even cheaper places like Vietnam. And I said, why don't they just invent a new country?
Build a new country and call it Slavelandia. We've got 7 billion people and all they have to do is take all the uneducated, the ones who don't have a future, and make them go to work in Slavelandia. You don't even have to feed them. There are so many people, you just work them until they die and then grind them up for fertilizer. Then we could keep corporate profits really high.
Here's the moral: Don't buy Coach; don't buy anything made in countries other than your own if at all possible. Most countries have enough people in them to do business mostly with each other and if they followed that model, they would do just fine. After all, before globalization, that's mostly the way it used to be, and mostly it worked.
Daily Bell: What of the argument, made by labor organizers recently, that if companies pull out of Bangladesh they only hurt the workers who live there? Same effect from a movement to boycott, they maintain.
Gerald Celente: They have to readjust this kind of narrow thinking. What do they want to do, fight to keep the plantation going?
Great argument! Feed the slaves just enough so they can keep working? Except no one wants to call it a "plantation"; we'll call it a multinational! Will that make these labor organizers happy? What's their logic? Do they believe that the slave laborers are incapable of fending for themselves and too ignorant to survive in the world on their own? In essence, their argument that slave labor is better than no labor is both insulting and moronic.
Daily Bell: It sounds like what you're saying is that the counter to globalization – and that's one example of it – is smaller communities, self-reliance?
Gerald Celente: Yes. What, we can't take care of ourselves or each other? We can't buy each other's products? We're too stupid to make them? We're too ignorant to make shirts or shoes?
It's only about the bottom line. Look, when was the United States at its height? When we had trade barriers, when we had laws in place like Glass-Steagall for the banking sector, or Robinson-Patman and Sherman Anti-Trust, Clayton Anti-Trust so that the "bigs" couldn't grab everything. Now they've deregulated those laws and statutes that made it something of a level playing field. What kind of future can you have working at Macy's or Walmart or Target or Staples or Home Depot or Rite Aid or CVS? That's a life?
Daily Bell: Is part of all this because people can't see that there is an alternative, that they don't have the vision?
Gerald Celente: Sure. Vision's a big thing. Not a lot of people have it. And there is plenty of proof to make that case. For example, there are virtually no university courses in how to identify, track and forecast trends. Colleges are top heavy with history courses but nothing about having a vision of the future.
Daily Bell: People aren't aware of many examples of this.
Gerald Celente: Exactly, and that's what I was saying: Fish rot from the head down. There is no vision at the top of government. So if you have no leaders showing the way, how can the people be led into a more civilized and advanced future? Again, leaders are incapable of showing the way in a corrupt system.
But I think, as I said, there are two models to follow: Obviously, Switzerland, with direct democracy, though nobody talks about it. They're rich, the food's good, everybody has guns but they don't shoot each other and they have the highest standard of living in the world. They vote on everything. You want to go to war? When was the last time Switzerland was at war? Around a century and a half ago?"