managing
Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2014
- Messages
- 2,262
What I think you are missing is what I mean by radical globalism. As far as I'm concerned, we've never experienced it (not yet). If, as in your first paragraph, we are trading anything other than natural resource commodities, that isn't what I call globalism. The kind of "globalism" you are talking about is where we need to keep wages low in "developing" countries so they can make stuff for us on the cheap. That's exploitation and its part and parcel of the weakening of the middle class. But, again, its not the Chinese laborers (for example) stealing our lunch money, its the oligarchs. Only when those Chinese laborers make mol the same as American, Japanese, and German laborers, will we have globalism. Then there will be no incentives for "offshoring". Like I said, simple products like window blinds or steno pads will be manufactured close to home and more complex things like cars and cellphones only slight farther (potentially) away. Transportation costs will be the major barrier to centralization. We've never gotten anywhere close to this. Maybe I need to start calling it something else. Any ideas?Well I’m glad I don't have to jump into the Marxist swimming pool to debate that tired idea though I am sure many here would like to. However I disagree with you as well. For trade to produce a benefit to both sides, each side needs to buy what the other produces. What we have now is a lopsided deal where we have opened up our markets to developing countries and they have refused to open theirs. Our trade deficit with China alone is over 350 billion a year. To pay for this we have been selling them our debt, our companies, and other capital assets. This of course can’t go on forever as you eventually run out of assets and your debt becomes worthless. Free trade is not making us better off but just more and more in debt.
I also disagree that the loss of wealth due to free trade can be explained by increases to the wealth of the US upper class. Whatever meager benefits we have gotten from outsourcing our production has gone mainly to the elite and some to US consumers but that increase doesn’t come close to offsetting the collective loss of our country to the developing world. The numbers are too large and the US elite too small to account for it all. The vast majority of the benefits have gone to all class segments in the developing world at our expense. The Chinese now have the highest number of billionaires, the largest middle class and 100s of millions of Chinese peasants have been lifted out of poverty. This is great for them but it is coming at the expense of our middle and working class.
You are repeating the tired mantra of the globalists. They are not being raised to our level but rather we are being brought down and they are being raised up to a new middling level which will be much lower than what we have today. The tide is not rising. Our pool is being drained to fill theirs. It’s been said that in politics there are always two reasons for everything that happens; the truth and then whatever lie they tell to the public. Globalism is very different in practice than the BS they peddle on the evening news. More globalism is not the answer. That is the definition of insanity.