There was once a bipartisan agreement that free trade was good for both America and the world. After the financial crisis of 2008, Occupy Wall Street, the election of Donald Trump, and the resurgence of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, that consensus fractured.
Free trade and globalization have given Americans more spending power, created better-paying jobs, lifted millions out of poverty, and made the country less vulnerable to supply-chain shocks and other crises. Although the total number of Americans working in the manufacturing sector has been declining, that's a global phenomenon driven by automation. U.S. manufacturing output has more than doubled since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
"Even as its justifications and the global economy change, the current skepticism toward free trade and globalization remains misguided," wrote Scott Lincicome, the Cato Institute's director of general economics and Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, in a recent article for Reason titled, "Globalization Is Alive, Well, and Changing."
"Free trade certainly isn't painless, but its disruptions do not outweigh its tremendous economic benefits for both the country and the world."
Photo Credits: ROGER L. WOLLENBERG/UPI/Newscom; WASHINGTON POOL/SIPA/Newscom; RICHARD B. LEVINE/Newscom; RICHARD B. LEVINE/Newscom; Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom; CNP/AdMedia/SIPA/Newscom; Rick Friedman/Polaris/Newscom; KEVIN DIETSCH/UPI/Newscom; LONG WEI/FEATURECHINA/Newscom; CHU BAORUI/FEATURECHINA/Newscom; John J. Kim/TNS/Newscom; Lindsey Nicholson/UCG/Universal Images Group/Newscom; Stephanie Tacy/SIPA USA/Newscom; Bill Clark/Newscom; Michael Nagle / Xinhua News Agency/Newscom; joan slatkin/Joan Slatkin/UCG/Universal Images Group/Newscom; Cliff Owen - CNP/Newscom; Cliff Owen / CNP / SplashNews/Newscom; Carlos Tischler/Eyepix/Newscom; ZHUO ZW/FEATURECHINA/Newscom; Realtime Images/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Illustration: Lex Villena; Gaoqing, 7xpert
Music Credits: "Youth" by ANBR via Artlist; "Soleil" by Stanley Gurvich via Artlist; "Reflections" by Stanley Gurvich via Artlist; "Free Radicals" by Stanley Gurvich via Artlist; "Other Scenario" by Stanley Gurvich via Artlist; "Binary Love" by Stanley Gurvich via Artlist
Written and narrated by Natalie Dowzicky; edited by Danielle Thompson.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Free trade yes, globalization, no.
What do you think the difference is?
Free speech yes, nasty speech no.
Right to keep and bear arms, but only disassembled and locked away from ammo.
Right to vote, but only if you can answer these 100 weird questions.
I worked part-time from my apartment and earned $30,030. After losing my previous business, I quickly became exhausted. Fortunately, I discovered this jobs online, and as a result, I was able to start earning money from home right away. Anyone can accomplish this elite career and increase their internet income by….
After reading this article:……>> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. Thank goodness, I found this employment online and I was able to start working from home right away. (res-27) This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
.
After reading this article:>>> https://workofferweb24.pages.dev/
Precisely so.
Your lot has been deliberately conflating globalism and empire building with globalization and free trade for the last 60 years.
Don't pretending to be shocked when people take the latter to mean the former.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best (lap-60) assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://smartpay21.pages.dev
Globalization is the UN, the Paris Agreement, trade deals like the UMSCA that requires member nations to increase the use of labor unions (or specifying minimum wages in the automotive industry) which actually aren't free markets but central control. Basically, Globalization is the attempt to create global government and for coalitions to try centrally controlling their economies. Globalization is also the continued expansion of NATO in an attempt to keep dragging more nations into potential wars.
Free trade is when barriers get removed and businesses are able to operate with supply lines that originate from everywhere in the world.
Striking a trade deal with a government that exerts a lot of central control over its economy is something of a confused middle. It does allow tapping into new markets and expanding supply lines, but it also means compromising on the "Free" aspects of free markets, where you do have to negotiate through government interference.
If that's what the original commenter " Don't look at me!" meant, fine; it's shorthand for more government, good and hard. But I'm more familiar with people who equate free trade and globalization, or lump them together, which is how this article equates them. That is why I asked what the difference is.
I can't speak for everyone, but there's been a conflation of ideas. The free market is the free market for me, and global supply chains are just an inherent concept of the free market. I don't perceive "globalization" as the free market because it's a different term, I perceive it as the force of the EU. Governments join together to create a shared economic block and a common currency, but that ends up becoming its own regulating authority. Power is then not vested nearly locally enough so the concerns of Polish farmers or Italian fishermen can't be addressed.
Globalization as a term now seems to mean to many on both sides as a global bureaucracy (for common good or for financial self-interest, depending on your side) than as a global free market.
^ This.
Though I've seen a lot of anti-globalization stuff that is explicitly protectionist as well. So, that's also not a free market thing.
If I ask myself honestly how I think about the word "globalization" I think I just ignore it now. It's like "neo-liberal" or something. People just throw it out as a vaguely dreadful term. Maybe it had a meaning once, but it's rarely used in a well defined way.
If I want to talk about the free market, I just talk about free market. Free trade is free trade. Globalized supplies are just the free market and free trade. It's all consistent with my principles.
But "globalization" too often seems to be a codeword for "stakeholder capitalism," which is the destruction of capitalism. I don't tune out when I hear the word, I have a visceral reaction to it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think skepticism and limited trust in powerful people is ideal.
My only point is that globalization has become a buzzword without clear meaning and thus my mind increasingly ignores it entirely.
I have this issue with how we get really caught up in using words and then arguing over what that word means. That's so much of our debate now, and I think it prevents us from actually discussing the issue at hand. See "groomer" for another example of it. The facts on the ground are the same, but we end up arguing whether this word classifies it correctly.
I agree with you both BUT... the current state of play in politics demands clarification and the refuting of dishonest language.
The visceral reaction is appropriate because the misapplication and corruption of language is a major tool in the effort to reshape society into national and global nanny govts.
Tuning out just allows the bad guys to steal more ground.
The problem is that we never get rid of the bad guys.
but there's been a conflation of ideas.
Intentionally so. It's a typical leftist motte and bailey. They used to claim Free Trade whenever anyone points out the ever increasing levels of laws and regulations centralizing power in an increasingly unaccountable bureaucracy.
I believe that’s what he’s saying. WEF= globalists.
Yes.
And I certainly didn’t “lump them together”.
This.
See the WEF and globalist in the DNC and global governments. They want to impose global norms and regulations such as a 15% global minimum tax. Also the use of Global ESG to force compliance and leftist goals.
Right-I was assuming everyone was aware of how the WEF talks about globalization and what that organization actually is. That organization is a big part of why the word is currently so widely used, and they're NOT a free trade organization. They're for globally centrally controlled economies that put strict quotas o the used of plastics, carbons, and, well, The Great Reset.
Even if you take them at their word, The Great Reset is a plan aimed at socialism. "Welcome to 2030, I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better!"
https://web.archive.org/web/20161125135500/https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/shopping-i-can-t-really-remember-what-that-is
That's what the WEF thinks globalization is, trying to reach the communist ideal where food is free, transportation is free, energy is free, and medicine is free. That's the DEATH of free market competition, and it's what the WEF is trying to achieve.
Here is the WEF proposing global internet censors governed by AI to crack down on free speech.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/08/online-abuse-artificial-intelligence-human-input
Strange article. Convenient leaves out a few details, such as who is making this free stuff you can just order? Who brings it to you? What do you do with you time? And most important, what is you motivation to do anything if everything is just given for free?
Fucked up concept.
That's the WEF's policy endpoint. All jobs will be replaced by AI and robots, apparently. Also, they're planning to dictate different food policies, because rich people need to eat less and differently so the poor can eat more.
It's all very fucked up. It's the WEF's concept of globalization. Look up also their idea of how we need to radically change food production:
https://web.archive.org/web/20161125144115/https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/what-will-we-eat-in-2030
It is undoubtedly true that some areas of the world need access to radically more food, but equally, other areas of the world are suffering from eating too much of the wrong sort of food, and filling landfills with discarded food waste. Many commentators agree we are likely to need a “contract and converge” model, or as Tim Lang, a Professor of Food Policy at City University in London, has eloquently put it: “the rich need to eat less, and differently, so the poor can eat more and differently”.
One can imagine a different food system. If we lived in a world where demand was different – perhaps because people wanted to eat healthily and sustainably – it is possible to imagine a much greater mix of big and small farms, producing a larger range of produce, employing more people and creating a more local and circular economy.
So what might we eat in 2030? I think demand will be shifting and more people will want to eat a healthy diet, one that is less intensive (and wasteful) of resources. The increasing emergence of localism, wholefoods, organic, artisanal and “real food” movements is a sign of this – at least for the rich and dedicated. So our diets may be more veg and fruit, whole grains and vegetarian food or new alternatives (soya products, or perhaps insects or artificial meat), and less fried and sugary things. We’ll still eat meat, but, perhaps more like our parents and grandparents, see it as a treat to savour every few days.
The Great Reset is undiluted megalomania and evil.
The WEF is so evil and crazy it is comical.
So...free trade like the EU is a free trade block?
There are some aspects of the EU that are indeed free trade orientated - e.g., the restriction on government subsidies, seen most hilariously when France was hit with a charge that it was illegally subsidising Air France - "but all the other countries subsidise their national carriers because we can't make a profit from Air France, so all these other carriers can't be profitable either".
Free trade like the US has between states. No tariffs between California and Oregon, no customers at the Iowa and Indiana border, etc. Just drive your goods across the line and sell them. No one shitting their pants over it.
Oregon isn't China or even Mexico. Do you just not understand that?
Where faggot California gets to dictate emissions standards...
CA should be put under martial law when we regain control. Strangely, Californians would be freer in many ways compared to life under their Marxist masters.
It isnt free trade between the states retard. See California's farming and livestock provisions required to sell there the effect the national market. See eggs and bacon specifically.
Free trade is fine till you traded away all your important things and it only takes one nation to screw up the entire planet.
in this case two recent and ongoing examples
Russia invading Ukraine
China shutting the world down over the kung flu
Russia invading Ukraine
Did not 'screw up the entire planet'
China shutting the world down over the kung flu
China did not shut down schools in California. Californians did it to themselves.
"Free trade yes, globalization, no."
Bingo
This guy gets it.
seconded
Yup. Free trade =/= globalization.
Globalism is a cancer.
Have you any quantifiable measure to counter U.S. manufacturing output has more than doubled since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Do you think that the principle of comparative advantage is evil?
It magically doesn't apply across international borders. Magic!
They all got their educations from Hogwarts.
It's almost an authoritarian/nationalist litmus test to read a description of comparative advantage and see if the reader interprets it as 'Country A' and 'Country B' rather than 'People of group A' and 'People of group B' or 'Industry A' and 'Industry B'. Even if the description explicitly says 'Country A' and 'Country B', the interpretation requires you to assume or fail to question that economies and comparative advantages exist without Nations/Borders. An exceptionally bizarre notion for people who generally fall in the 'borders are just a figment of imagination' crowd.
They all got their educations from Hogwarts.
Apparently, along with the rest of the libertarians, who conveniently leave out that Ricardo started with the assumption that while goods would be crossing borders, labor and capitol would remain stationary.
Given that neither of those conditions any longer apply, crying "Comparative Advantage!" to every objection to globalism doesn't make you look informed, it make you look stupid.
Globalism != free trade.
Next question
See TFA for the opposite.
I can't imagine tying my credibility to a Reason article... but you do you.
"It has made the world dramatically richer"
Of course from a Koch / Reason libertarian perspective the most relevant question to ask when evaluating any policy is, "Does it make the 20 to 30 richest people on the planet dramatically richer?"
Naturally Reason.com's benefactor Charles Koch belongs to this exclusive club. And globalization absolutely benefits him. Want proof? Under "populist" / "anti-globalist" President Drumpf, Mr. Koch's net worth actually fell to under $50,000,000,000. Totally unacceptable!
Now that Reason staffers got their wish of a Biden Presidency, Mr. Koch is doing much better. He's worth $70,000,000,000 now. 🙂
#SupportGlobalizationToHelpCharlesKoch
#InDefenseOfBillionaires
Globalization has mitigated supply chain shocks, really? I seem to recall a significant supply chain shock at the end of last year due to the ports not being able to handle the surge in traffic in the waning of Covid. Having the computer chip industry largely centered on Taiwan seems a precarious and insecure situation for such a vital product with China's sabre rattling.
Globalism is definitely not an unvarnished good.
Nothing is an unvarnished good.
Government created the supply chain problems. I see you blame COVID, not the government reactions to COVID which fucked up the world economy.
Were free trade and globalization OK by you before the government lockdowns? Or did you have a different excuse then?
"Government caused the supply chain problem"
Ok, so what? There was still a problem. Some of these problems were caused by other countries governments. Some of the problems in the ports were caused by too powerful unions limiting the operations of the ports. The global trade system seems to be less robust than advertised, and that is a problem, especially when major trade partners are not playing nice.
There's nothing wrong with global supply chains and even getting most of your resources internationally...as long as you're COMPETING. What we instead see are governments that shut down their own industries and reduce competition, or just regulate them out of existing, because they can just get those resources from unregulated or less-regulated countries. That's part of what pisses people off about global supply chains-we're not even competing, we're just forfeiting.
Dependency is certainly not something to be proud of
"The global trade system seems to be less robust than advertised, and that is a problem, especially when major trade partners are not playing nice."
When the US shut down, China was still open. Despite massive swaths of our industries being idled, Americans could largely still get goods and supplies necessary to live. Was it a near thing with toilet paper? Sure. But no one was starving in the streets and the lights kept turning on throughout the pandemic.
This was all possible BECAUSE of global trade.
I swear to god if some guy drove a truck off a cliff, and they were able to get up and walk away unharmed, you'd be saying, "Well, those trucks aren't as tough as advertised!"
"This was all possible BECAUSE of global trade."
This is wholly a statement of faith, much like "if I hadn't gotten vaccinated it would've been so much worse when I got covid"
No it is a statement of fact. This is why, towards the end of 2021, China was facing a shipping container shortage. During 2020, they were shipping shit to the US, but there was nothing to bring back. And so the shipping containers piled up here.
I get that there are reasons we should be skeptical of letting so much shit get produced by one (dictatorial) country. But failure of our supply chain during the pandemic is not one of those reasons.
"if I hadn't gotten vaccinated it would've been so much worse when I got covid"
Yes, the risks of having most of your supply overseas in one country has become apparent. The solution is to spread it out as much as practical among safe nations and keep more stock at home. Just in time delivery turns out to be not in time at all if there are disruptions. Make some of the chips elsewhere like Chile or Uruguay, not all in Taiwan. Get some natural gas from somewhere besides Russia.
At one point in time economists recognized a cost of risk due to supply chain, especially when complex. This idea disappeared on the 2000s and realized during covid.
It's not risky if your supply chain is actually diverse and complex. It's risky when your supply chain is complex and entrenched, so it has multiple single points of failure.
The reason we don't have baby formula, despite that being produced domestically, is because subsidies and regulations killed the industry. Deregulation is the answer, because that decreases central control and increases competition, creating more flexibility.
Chile or Uruguay? Talk about out of the frying pan into the fire. There is no stability south of the border.
"Just in time delivery turns out to be not in time at all if there are disruptions."
This is not true at all.
Here is a perfect example. Right at the beginning of the Pandemic, Americans strangely decided that they needed home exercise equipment. And so there was a massive spike in demand. One of the biggest suppliers of adjustable-weight dumbells was Wisconsin-based Powerblock.
Despite having full warehouses and all the inventory they needed, Powerblock nearly failed during one of the biggest demand spikes in the country's history. Because all their fully stocked warehouses and storefronts were closed.
Do you know whose adjustable weights you COULD get? NordicTrack, and several chinese knockoffs that were still being sourced globally. Yes, demand outstripped even this supply. But that wasn't the fault of JIT inventories. Those companies wouldn't EXIST during the pandemic if they had a habit of creating stockpiles that exceeded 4 or 5 years of normal demand.
In fact, JIT inventories helped shorten the disruptions. As demand changed dramatically across the entire world, companies were able to pivot and put money where it was demanded, instead of it remaining locked up in years-long supplies of inventory that may or may not have been accessible or useful.
These people declaring the end to JIT supplychains are the worst kind of monday-morning quarterbacks who know very, very little about the
Because all their fully stocked warehouses and storefronts were closed.
I mean, that's a government problem more than a market inefficiency. Though yes, you'll sometimes have market shortages like this that aren't due to government disruption, such as actual disasters. A tornado destroys a manufacturing plant, an earthquake destroys roads and disrupts travel, etc.
As long as we're reducing barriers, instead of regulating manufacturers out of existence so we can outsource production to deregulated counties, it's a good thing.
"I mean, that's a government problem more than a market inefficiency."
Yes, but these people are declaring that the pandemic "exposed Just in time supply chains". It didn't. The shortage was caused by the government shutting down domestic businesses. Full stop. Whether your warehouse stocks years of inventory or "just in time" levels, if it is shut down, it is shut down.
And Just In Time inventory actually helps in cases of disaster as well. These critics are myopically looking at this and saying, "Well if a disaster prevents you from re-supplying your inventory, then you get a shortage." Well, what if a disaster destroys your massive inventory? Aren't you still fucked? The difference between those two use cases is working capital. In the former (JIT) case, you may have disruptions, but you have working capital to spend on overcoming distribution problems. In the latter (traditional inventory) case, all your working capital was sunk into the widgets that are now buried under rubble. You can't supply them, and you have no (or less) money to replace them.
Just in time supply chains are nothing more than committing working capital at the last possible moment. As with ANY supply chain, they are vulnerable to disruption. But unlike traditional manufacturing and supply chains, JIT ensures that you have the flexibility to respond to these disruptions.
Again, it is a fucking miracle that when the developed world idled almost its entire workforce, we weren't reduced to eating our pets to stay alive. Because that's what would have happened in 90% of human history. Yet, because it took a couple weeks to respond to this massive disruption, people who have never had a job at UPS, let alone any strategic logistics, suddenly think they've discovered what millions of subject matter experts missed. It's asinine.
"I seem to recall a significant supply chain shock at the end of last year due to the ports not being able to handle the surge in traffic in the waning of Covid."
The fact that americans didn't starve en masse after 60% of the developed world decided to shut down their economies and lock people in their homes is a testament to the robustness of our global supply chains, not an indictment.
That's pure horseshit and you know it. They basically enslaved (work or be let go) all the "essential" workers.
The usual idiots have already surfaced.
* How is it libertarian for government to block trade, whether by nation, by tariffs, by import/export quotas, or any other means?
* If international borders are the limit, why not state borders, or counties or cities?
* The only way to be self-sufficient is to live in the stone age, hunt and forage on your own.
* When market efficiency makes it cheaper to export some products in order to import others, self-sufficiency means using more resources to make all those imports locally and stop making those exports. Except the bozos who think this is fine and dandy missed the "efficiency" part of markets, and don't understand that there are not enough resources to inefficiently make what used to be imported.
This last is what astonishes me most. If you can make $1B of products, pay to ship them around the world, pay to import $1B of products in exchange, then there are some tremendous efficiencies at play. By definition, those $1B of imports will cost a whole lot more than the $1B it took to make the exports.
Shut down those exports, free up $1B. Great -- but it's going to take a lot more than $1B to make those imports locally.
Anyone who can't see that is even more ignorant than Trump.
Anyone who applauds market efficiencies within the country but thinks they don't apply across international borders is deluded.
The problem is when we sign trade deals like the USMCA that require provisions about labor policies. I do think it's worthwhile to have some reciprocity when it comes to things like intellectual property and copyrights, the problem is that our current copyright laws have a few problems and we're now stuck in a treaty that makes it more onerous to actually fix the law.
Trade should be free and unrestricted, but I see a lot of the globalists who want to use trade to try force their version of labor laws and climate policies on every nation. That's the type of globalization that I find concerning. I don't care that supply lines cross a ton of borders, but I do find it concerning when nations shut down their own infrastructure when it comes to producing resources like oil or natural gas, relying instead on the fact that they can get it all from Russia or the Middle East. Free trade should mean that we don't restrict our own oil development and we force OPEC and Russia to compete in terms of prices.
I mean just look at Germany. You might say "Well they opened up international supply lines and decided it was cheaper to get energy sources from Russia!" But that's because they wouldn't let any domestic energy sources compete-they arbitrarily shut down nuclear, and they've been moving away from coal despite the fact that modern power facilities can burn coal very cleanly. Germany has vast reserves of coal that they COULD tap, but they aren't, they went all-on on Nordstream and renewables, despite the fact that renewables rely heavily on government subsidies.
It's not the free market at play when something like that happens, but it's arguably "globalization" because they're outsourcing supply and production.
And keep in mind, the goal doesn't need to be self-sufficiency, the goal should be not relying so heavily on any single point of failure. That's what free trade and global supply lines should be-perhaps if there's an international incident, you still have domestic production that can try to step in and fill the void while you look for other international options to fill the gaps. It's okay to make use of global supply lines, but it's not very useful when you're leaning heavily on a centrally-controlled administration like Saudi Arabia to continue producing oil for you.
I agree with you -- with your understanding of "globalization" which means more government. But that is not what TFA means, and does not match my perception of what most people mean.
I assumed everyone was using "globalization" in the way I perceived it. Because we already have a work for global, unrestricted supply chains-that's the "free market."
The reason I get confused is because you hear World Economic Forum people talk a LOT about globalization, and those people are largely anti-capitalism, pushing an idea they call "stakeholder capitalism," which is just a codeword for socialism.
I have come across people who are all for free internal markets but nonetheless want tariffs to protect domestic industries internationally, or disapprove of outward capital flows - so they're "free markets, but..." and therefore are not truly in favour of free markets.
Ensuring that we have the domestic industrial base to have a first class military requires protecting domestic industries and preventing some outward capital flows. It is not free trade. There is no denying that. It is, however, a necessary thing to do.
You can believe in free trade and see it as a good thing but also understand there are limits. Hell, I am quite sure there are lots of nations out there who would happily buy our nuclear weapon's technology. And I am sure there is good money to be made doing that. Yet, we don't export nuclear weapons or the designs or technology to create those weapons. And some of that stuff is owned by private companies. So, we are not just talking about the government here. Does supporting that mean you don't believe in free trade?
It means you're not a free-trade absolutist. If the limits are political - like, "don't sell nukes to tinpot dictators" that is different, I think, from economic limits e.g., to protect corporate donors' profits
One man's political limit is another man's rip off. In theory I agree but it is not that simple to determine where the line is.
Arguing the imaginary is so convenient
The problem is when we sign trade deals like
Who's "we"? I think you mean "they".
Your issue and error is assumptions from an ideal state. When a bad market actor exists, letting them run unchecked is not a free market.
The only real free market possible internationally is (ironically? maybe not...) the black market. Any legal trade is subject to a plethora of laws, regulations, taxes that vary between nations. Trade agreements might standardize those things, but now you have government intervening to impose different conditions for international vs domestic trade.
Self sufficiency is the road to prosperity. Now if we'd all just live on subsistence farms like good little commies...
Sarcasmic with the daily double of logical fallacies. He scores with strawman and false dichotomy.
No one is claiming the US should be self sufficient (strawman). And there are degrees of difference between total free trade and total self sufficiency, neither of which can exist in the most extreme form anyway (false dichotomy).
Bravo. It is rare that someone manages two fallacies in such a short post. But you did.
The logical conclusion of "Imports bad! Protect industry!" is self sufficiency and poverty.
And Sarcasmic goes for the trifacta by adding in reductio ad abusrdum. Any position can be taken to its absurd extreme. Pointing that out doesn't say anything about the desirability of the actual position.
Doesn't make what I said untrue.
Good conversations are being had in the comments and then the homeless guy pops in to shit in the proverbial town square
I support free trade. But, honestly, this assessment borders on the Pollyannaish. Free trade invariably produces a net benefit. But, the important word there is net. The benefits outpace the losses. But, there are, in fact, losses. And the beneficiaries and relative losers from free trade are only ever the same people by a stroke of pure, unadulterated happenstance. And, honestly, telling a guy who just lost his manufacturing job of twenty years that, hey, it's okay, because his loss is going to be outpaced by the gains from lower prices paid by college professors, human resource drones and government compliance lawyers and wage gains for people he's never met halfway around the world strikes me as a little obtuse. And the free trade deals that we've seen in recent years really do seem to have just these sorts of redistributive effects. And I can really see why some of these people might look at libertarians and wonder when they're going to get around to pushing free trade and market liberalizations that benefit them at the expense of the new class. Add to that the fact that globalization is about a lot more, in practice, than free trade. In practice, it's about uninterrupted migration, centralization of power in global "governance structures" and the universalization of cosmopolitan culture as the global norm. These trends, while perhaps positive in some universal sense, probably aren't so hot when judged from the perspective of the middle and lower middle classes of the most affluent societies.
this assessment borders on naive. The main "losers" in a free trade scenario are the entrenched rent-seekers getting filthy rich from the protectionism. It's not the factory workers as a class who suffer.
That just isn't true. This country's industrial base has been hollowed out. People did suffer. If you want to claim that suffering was worth the benefit or somehow deserved because the market has moral authority, fine. But don't claim it doesn't exist because it does.
Hahahaahhahahaha
All change involves some pain. It's the change, not the trade. Wanting a world that does not change is a common enough view, but it's not a good view.
Decline and poverty are change too. Just because it is "change" doesn't mean it is desirable.
As I said at the start, I support free trade. But, I'm not so callous as to look on other men's pain as something that can be dismissed with the vague reference to "change". And, as I note, the particular distributive effects of the changes we've seen invariably harm one set of people and provide benefits to another. Largescale repeal of the administrative state, eliminating law degree requirements for passing the bar or repeal of the laws (Court decisions, actually) that push young people into subsidized higher ed would be entirely consistent with libertarianism. Yet, they seem to take a lower priority on so many libertarians' agendas. It's hardly surprising, then, when the middle and lower middle class people harmed by trade or mass immigration conclude globalization is a scam.
...Peter Smith, “In Determined Pursuit of Unhappiness”, Quadrant, May, 2019
It hasn't made the world safer at all. It has done nothing but provide nations and the US in particular with excuses to go to war and meddle in the rest of the world in the name of maintaining stability and access to markets.
Reason is constantly critical of US involvement in the Middle East. The U.S. wasn't involved in the Middle East until the 1970s when it became so to ensure its supply of oil. If you want the US to stop meddling in the Middle East, the best way to do that is get it to stop depending on oil from there. Trade doesn't necessarily create peace. It often, as the middle east shows, creates conflict. The US trades hardly at all with Sub-Saharan Africa and is rarely if ever in conflict with the region.
This is not to say globalism hasn't had good effects. It has. But global peace or a reduction in international conflicts is not one of those good things. In fact, globalism has increased conflict.
Globalism has also funded the police state and international aggressions of China. Trading with unfree countries has never made them free. It just made the regimes that run them wealthier and more able to fund their security states and cause trouble.
Lastly, the pandemic showed that globalism has its limits. You cannot depend upon global supply chains for everything. You need to be able to produce essential things at home if you can.
It's almost like they've never heard of the Opium Wars
It’s definitely made the people of Yemen safer.
It is amusing how globalists get the famous Bastiat quote "if goods don't cross borders, armies will" wrong. That statement is true but whether or not even Bastiat realized it, it isn't an endorsement of free trade creating peace. Goods crossing borders does not prevent war. It creates the situation where if one side or some third power stops those goods from crossing the border, the other side has an excuse to go to war to resume them doing so. If the goods never cross the border, then the conflict never arises.
Indeed, time and again nation states have gone to war to ensure that foreign markets remain open to them and they have access to foreign goods. That doesn't mean foreign trade isn't worth doing. It often is. It does, however, mean that foreign trade is not going to bring you peace and in fact will likely come with more conflict.
It creates the situation where if one side or some third power stops those goods from crossing the border, the other side has an excuse to go to war to resume them doing so.
And what if it's your own government that is stopping good from crossing borders?
*goods*
It is always the government that is doing it. Governments enforce borders. And they go to war to open those borders when it is in their interests. I am not sure you understand the point very well.
I don't think you understand the point. You're saying that governments preventing good from crossing borders is an act of war. What about when your own government does it? Isn't that committing an act of war against its own people?
Basically, beware of how people are using the word "globalization." The WEF isn't in favor of free, open, global supply chains. When they say "globalization," they're not talking about the same thing Reason is.
Complex, robust supply chains are good because supply and demand solves the issues on its own. When there's a failure, prices go up and reduce the amount of a supply that can be created, but the increased prices serve as an entry point for someone else to fill the gap. Unrestricted global trade is good because it's maximized competition. But regulating a domestic industry out of existence and relying on getting all of that industry from a foreign entity, especially a foreign entity that exerts heavy control on its economy, is not competitive. It indebts you to that foreign government.
Also trading with a hostile power and allowing that power to run various industries that are vital to your national security out of business such that they relocate to the hostile power is pretty stupid. And that is exactly what we have done with China. Relying on China to supply our military is insane. Yet, that is exactly what people like Reason and the WEF support.
Reason and the WEF hate independent nation states, and resent the US
Nothing says "freedom" like wanting a global bureaucracy totally removed from accountability running the entire world.
Which is exactly what these globalized supply chain worshippers are advocating for, even if they pretend otherwise
This. Free markets are fine, with the caveat that there are things that you don't want to expose to the market. Defense would be at the top of the list, along with vital industries.
Dependency is not freedom, no matter how economically efficient it is.
A simple test: Find someone who is a fan of globalization and ask them what they think about capitalism. Don't be surprised if they're big fans of socialism. 'Globalization', like 'democracy' or 'fascism', means everything and therefore nothing.
Socialism was the original form of globalism. Socialism was supposed to be a world wide revolution. Indeed, the original Marxists admitted that the entire world had to be come socialist for socialism to succeed. It had to be a global revolution creating a global socialist state.
Yeah, it makes perfect sense that the globalists today are predominantly socialist.
Free trade with friendly countries good. "free" trade with murderous dictatorships bad.
The problem, as many note, is the conflation of globalization and globalism.
Globalization is independent nations forming free world markets and supply chains that benefit all who use them.
Globalism is imposing a single political structure upon all nations as a way to peacefully accrete into a world state.
The problem, of course is the word 'impose'.
Globalization is a phenomenon. Globalism is an ideology. That is the difference.
Uh, the notions are conflated and your distinction refutes English vocab/grammar.
Globalism is a noun. Globalism is an idea.
Globalize is a verb. Globalize is the execution of the idea.
Globalization is a noun. Globalization is the process of implementing that idea.
The notion of imposition is woven into the details. Where exactly is in the minds of the idea holders and the actions of the people doing the implementing. The actual imposing is done as part of globalization.
Yes, international trade between people across who agreed to the terms and conditions have made the world richer.
The voluntary sharing of culture and cultural appropriation have also made the world a richer, better world.
But the forced export (or import) of regulatory strictures which limit commerce and impoverish people will not make the world a richer, better place.
Trading with authoritarian and totalitarian states has not made those countries free, despite the claims that it would. Instead, it has just made those nations richer and more powerful.
What is going to kill globalism is China. Had China never been admitted to the WTO and global free trade remained restricted to a club of more or less democratic and free societies, everything would have been fine. When they admitted China, global free trade as we know it ended. You can't have a free trade system when one of the parties acts entirely in bad faith and sees manipulating the system as a means of achieving global dominance. And that is exactly what China did.
If I want to sell a hammer to a construction worker in China it's none of your damn business.
What if you want to sell a nuclear warhead?
what about the ROADZ?!?!?!
Sucks when you get your idiocy stuffed up your ass and have no retort, eh?
Have you sold a hammer to a construction worker in China? As in flew it over there and changed hands Renminbi for hammer? Or did you sell it to a reseller who sold it to a subsidiary of the Chinese Government? The former, I agree, none of my business. The latter, providing material support to a hostile enemy? Yeah, I'm not entirely clear you have an unfettered right to keep everyone ignorant about that.
The Chinese government sees it differently.
You can't have a free trade system when one of the majority parties acts entirely in bad faith and sees manipulating the system as a means of achieving global dominance.
Worth noting that this wasn't just letting some Kim Jung Il, Recep Erdogan, or Viktor Orban, where the size of the corrupt economy was on par with world wide issuance of parking tickets either. It's one thing to have crony socialist control of corners of an economy. It's another when you can't keep your doctor or your ICE car or your home heating because socialists have seized control of half or more of the economy.
socialists have seized control of half or more of the economy.
You mean half or more of the planet.
Conflating "globalism" with "free trade" is akin to conflating legal and illegal immigration.
Republicans, circe 2012: We're not against immigration, we're only against illegal immigration.
Republicans, circa 2022: We have too much immigration! Aaargh! Taking ur jerbs! Taking ur kulture!
The Chamber of Commerce open borders wing no longer runs the Republican party. Saying they are against immigration in general is a much more honest position than the Chamber of Commerce dodge.
Meanwhile, what is reason's position on immigration? As far as I can tell it is not having a border at all and allowing anyone, even someone who means harm. They claim there is a limit to immigration, but they have never actually found it. Is there a single person in the world that reason would support being deported?
Feel free to provide a source of any Republican in 2022 saying that.
Oh what's that? You can't? Because you're a stupid lying piece of subhuman shit? Well in that case, you should choke yourself to death on my fat fucking cock.
"Globalisation" can be seen as a framework for action. Do you want most nations to trade freely with each other? Then it makes sense to have a framework so that free trade treaties can be hammered out. That's globalisation. Do you want countries to have inordinate protection for workers? Then you want a framework so that worker protection treaties can be hammered out. That, too, is globalisation.
Amazing how quickly it goes from "MUH FREEDUMB TO SELL A MEXICAN MUH POWER DRILL" to "MUH FREEDUMB TO FORM A GLOBAL FRAMEWORK FOR NATION-STATES TO TRADE AMONG OTHER NATION-STATES AND EXPORT THEIR REGULATORY STATE". Almost like you're just a Marxist piece of shit, shreek. Of course, that's a mild criticism compared to your being a child rapist.
You know what ELSE USE-TO,,,, "made the USA dramatically richer and safer"??????
Domestic "free" trade..... I guess Making China Great Again is far more important to Reason than Making America Great Again.
The US went from a backwater former colony in 1800 to the most powerful industrial nation the world had ever seen in 1900, while engaging in what can only be described as extreme protectionism the entire time. Yet, oddly, we are informed that free trade is what made the US rich. Even today foreign trade is a small fraction of US GDP. The US has never been a great world trading nation. But, elites have gotten rich screwing everyone else in the name of "free trade", so make China Great Again, it is.
Freedom made us rich.
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/how-freedom-enriches-us
Yes. But it wasn't international trade. The US was neve a free trading country.
That explains why real wages haven't increased since the early 1970s.
Funny how you just auto-assume (by leftard indoctrination) people in your generation are more ?deserving? (i.e. work so much harder) than those of 1970....
And obviously since that auto-assumption must be fact; [WE] GUNS have to get pulled out to ensure that truth...
Why there cannot be a "civilized" society without the ability of employee's to pull out GUNS on their employers and demand MORE!
What bullshit. Safer from what? Americans haven't been in any danger in over half a century.
We're in tons of danger... it just comes from the literal cancer within mostly
It was not real clear to me how Communist China being in control of the resources has made the world safer, Taiwan in particular.
In any market, whether it is an international market or not, there are going to be cheaters on some level. Unscrupulous merchants who try to sell poison as baby food in order to make a quick buck, that sort of thing. And unless we are talking about complete anarcho-capitalism here, there is going to be some sort of law enforcement agency to police these instances of fraud, contract violations, etc. And if the fraud occurs in an instance of *international* trade, then that police agency has to be, at least on some level, international in character. If a merchant in Ishtar sells a widget to a customer in Zanzibar, and the widget turns out to be defective, or not made according to the contractual specifications, who enforces this contract? The government of Ishtar or the government of Zanzibar? Which nation's code of laws prevails? Ideally it ought to be some third party which is neutral that can fairly arbitrate the dispute, according to some agreed-upon set of rules, and with the two governments, or two individuals, willing to be bound by the decision. And if the two national governments were smart, they would establish the procedures for this dispute resolution mechanism before international trade was permitted between the two countries. That way neither side can try to rig the rules in their favor after a dispute has already occurred.
And so here we have the emergence of the dreaded "globalism". It isn't some nefarious plot to destroy nation-states. It is a necessary consequence of having to have some set of rules and procedures for how to handle disputes between parties residing in different nations in matters of international trade.
Now, some proponents obviously go too far. Wanting to create international structures that go way beyond just dealing with issues of trade. And sure there's big reasons to be skeptical of those types of arrangements. But an international relationship that attempts to mediate disputes between nations that involve issues of trade is not per se wrong, it is in fact a necessary requirement of any international market in order for the free and fair flow of goods can occur.
Or two people who engage in commerce across borders can build private arbitration into the contract, or make the contract subject to one country's court system instead of the other. Turns out that actually, no, you don't need a Marxist supranational global government in order to resolve simple contract disputes between parties just because they happen to be in different countries.
Also considering that you don't believe in border controls for goods or people and have stated repeatedly that immigrants, particularly the illiterate-in-two-languages 3rd grade educated pieces of welfare leeching shit from Mexico and SA, should not be subject to any form of law enforcement when they rape, murder, drive drunk, steal, and commit welfare fraud, it's somewhat strange that we would need this supranational global governance. I thought it was supposed to be a free for all where asking for documentation was literally fascism. Which is you fat fucking lardass piece of shit?
https://twitter.com/LPNational/status/1559970932562829312?t=mGkGNsg1OOXL5aNvwfiqmQ&s=19
Marxists hate seeing the middle class happy.
Why?
Because happy people don't start violent communist revolutions.
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1559984662369505281?t=2YTHKzz5fWOW8HWl7JXKWw&s=19
The Inflation Reduction Act will take the most aggressive action ever to confront the climate crisis and strengthen our energy security.
Thanks, globalization!
https://twitter.com/mkolken/status/1559896307652874242?t=FnjXID2d6TdsdrVikaImvA&s=19
As members of Congress raise my taxes, and threaten to audit my small business into submission to ensure political fealty they somehow manage to amass unfathomable wealth on a salary of $174,000 per year. But January 6th, Yo!
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/now-is-the-time-for-a-great-reset/
I don't think this author knows what "globalization" actually is. It's not just free trade or global trade. It's an ideology and an agenda perpetrated by the Davos crowd at the World Economic Forum. It's based on Malthusian ideas about overpopulation, and pushes a "green" agenda that its members, especially Bill Gates, have already heavily invested in (you can thank Gates for Manchin's vote on the disastrous "anti-inflation" law just passed from which Gates' renewable energy corporations will benefit mightily). Globalization pushes one world, open borders, and their famous motto: You will own nothing, and you will be happy. That's the truth about globalization.
International trade, travel, and communications have made the world dramatically richer and safer.
"Globalization", i.e., the creation of gigantic, unaccountable global bureaucracies, institutions and corporations, are threatening to erase all those benefits.
If by "the world" you mean "China", then sure. Meanwhile America's crime rate is creeping back to the same levels as the 60s and 70s thanks to Koch-suckers and their dindonuffin protected class who have carte blanche to commit as much crime as they like, and real wages haven't increased in over half of a century.
No, I mean the world. World poverty and hunger have decreased dramatically.
Starting in the 1970's, Americans became lazy, greedy, entitled, and uncompetitive; Americans started borrowing massive amounts of money, indoctrinating their children into neo-Marxism, and spent and consumed like there was no tomorrow, mostly from China. Guess what: there is no tomorrow. Deal with it: you did this to yourself.
'...output has more than doubled ..NAFTA...'
If you control 1 of 1 of output (100%) and output expands after NAFTA and goes to 100 but you only double yours, you end up with 2 of 100 - a loss of 98% of share of output and a loss of tens of millions of middle class jobs, which of course was the selling point of NAFTA to the globalists.
A global trade deal which looks good short term can have deadly traps. You might be trading with a partner whose trade policy is lie, cheat, and steal and they will be use what they learn to take your customers. You might be creating a monopoly which will control you. Shipping, inventory, and quality control costs rise. You will lose some ability to innovate by outsourcing some decision making. You might be creating a sole source supplier situation and they are usually a problem at some point. Deal makers need to look at consequences at least a decade into the future if they care about the success of their companies.
More importantly, you might be trading with a hostile communist regime that buying control of your companies and your real estate.
But at the heart of America's problems isn't trade policy, it's the consumer culture. While the US government facilitates Americans buying crap from China, it is Americans themselves that actually make that choice, rather than saving and investing.
Contrary to what Americans believe, spending money on consumer goods doesn't make you wealthier and doesn't help the economy; it, in fact, makes you poorer.
"The world."
Interesting choice of focus in the headline.
What about the US?
"What about the US?"
Tranny toilets. Trade, markets and development are for serious people.
The situation between Africa and China is interesting. When I was living in Hong Kong the trade among the Nigerians living there was dominated by shark fins from Africa for human hair from China. That was more than 20 years ago and the trade has grown in scope and intensity. Combined imports and exports are about a quarter trillion and growing yearly. Also some 3 million Chinese have moved to Africa and taken residence there. About 100,000 Africans are living in Guangdong province, bordering on Hong Kong.
http://library.lol/main/ADF16E28EEE7FEB18189DDA62AE7E451