Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm for free trade between anyone on earth who wants to trade with each other. I'm also vehemently against one world government. I'm very much against protectionism and only doing business within your country as well. In fact, I'm against borders and countries in general.
Also, the anti-free marketers in here are buying into the Keynesian school of economics, which I very much oppose (Broken window fallacy anyone?).
honestly what I think we have seen over the last 20 years is that neither of these approaches work out very well.
and I don't think Trump is purely a nationalist. He has stated over and over that the existing "deals" like NAFTA and TPP are bad because they aren't balanced. He has also stated that he believes that good "deals" can be mutually beneficial.
The fact is we have to have some kind of hybred approach that recognizes the national needs of the various nations involved, as well as the reality of an inter connected global economy.
Whether you realize it or not, you fall in one of the two camps. You are either a Patriot that puts America first or you are a Traitor that wants America to lose its sovereignty.
What do you call the Korean War, Vietnam, and Iraq? Globalists are always intervening in minor conflicts if not engaging in full scale conventional warfare. Nation building and exporting democracy are too darn expensive, especially considering the problems we have here. Globalism has destroyed places like Detroit. In my opinion, it is an act of treason to spend billions of dollars building up hostile nations when our fellow Americans are suffering. It is time to start investing here rather than dumping our money overseas.
Globalism has also produced cities like NYC, Miami, LA, San Francisco, Boston, Seattle, etc.
Pure nationalism and pure globalism are both awful.
That's hilarious. The Roman Empire about the time of Augustus was more or less considered "the world". Then it plunged into civil war. Even in Constantinople, at the height of the Eastern resurgence in the reign of Justinian , you had the Nika Riots .
Seems clear to me that nationalism with credible external threats is the most peaceful because people are not free to squabble among themselves. The US , at its zenith , is talking a lot more about breaking up while no such thing was contemplated during the cold war.
And ya might want to take a look at what happened in Scotland when it became part of the English sphere.
At the time we feel very comfortable as a global people , it will be the precise moment people will feel contend to engage in civil war. Beyond that , what I know about bell curves is that I can only imagine the kind of sociopaths we will end up with at the top of such a pyramid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
