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.
Anthony Gardner, former US ambassador to the EU, said on NPR this morning that:
Quote:
"...we have an open-world trading system, a liberal international economic order where we believe in globalization, and it's made us rich..."
Globalization could be defined as:
worldwide interconnection by removal of significant cultural and legal barriers
the pooling of states' sovereignty into a supranational organization
Those who are Globalists or advocates for Globalism could be defined as those who think the above are worthy, beneficial goals.
I think there are arguments to be made about the value of free trade in aggregate (to both countries involved – see comparative advantage). I think there are arguments to be made in favor of the presumptive right to migrate (wherein humans should be free to do as they choose – including live where they want to – unless to do so what violate the right of another).
However, there are certainly also valid arguments to be made against Globalization – that it entails being ruled and regulated from afar as if every country and individual needs the benevolent guidance of some central body, that it means a 'one size fits all' approach, that it produces unchecked and pernicious immigration into nations that should have the right to protect their borders, that it shows hostility toward ideas of citizenship, tradition, separate culture, and national identity, and that Globalists are generally in it for the cheap labor or moral contempt for nationalism. It can even beg the question, why even have borders or local governance in the first place? And there are Globalists on the right and the left.
I’m interested in opinions about Globalization, Globalism, and Free Trade. Is it possible for a rational person to be simultaneously “for” Free Trade as an idea and “against” Globalism as an idea, and is it possible in practice for Free Trade to exist without an embrace of Globalization? How do you feel about Free Trade, Globalism and Globalization, and strong borders vs. the right to migrate, etc.?
I’m not opposed to discussing the pros and cons of *particular* FTAs vs. the overall concept of Free Trade either, if anyone feels strongly about TPP, TTIP, NAFTA, etc. One other thing Gardner said was that if we reject Free Trade, we’re basically handing the reins to China to decide the direction Globalization will take.
Thank you.
Last edited by Nepenthe; 01-23-2017 at 06:43 PM..
Reason: edit: added the left / right bit
I’m interested in opinions about Globalization, Globalism, and Free Trade. Is it possible for a rational person to be simultaneously “for” Free Trade as an idea and “against” Globalism as an idea, and is it possible in practice for Free Trade to exist without an embrace of Globalization? How do you feel about Free Trade, Globalism and Globalization, and strong borders vs. the right to migrate, etc.?
I’m not opposed to discussing the pros and cons of *particular* FTAs vs. the overall concept of Free Trade either, if anyone feels strongly about TPP, TTIP, NAFTA, etc. One other thing Gardner said was that if we reject Free Trade, we’re basically handing the reins to China to decide the direction Globalization will take.
Thank you.
Say you have a business that employs 1000 people and generates $100 million in profit a year. Now you have a trade deal. You will lay off 500 people from your business and hire 500 people overseas at lower salary, and then sell more product overseas. Now you make $150 million in profit a year. If you are the owner of the business, you've got more money to put in the pocket. If you are the labor, well, you just got 50% chance to lose your job, and even if you keep your job, the competition will keep your wage low. This is basically why corporations are pushing for the deal and ordinary people are demonstrating against it.
Say you have a business that employs 1000 people and generates $100 million in profit a year. Now you have a trade deal. You will lay off 500 people from your business and hire 500 people overseas at lower salary, and then sell more product overseas. Now you make $150 million in profit a year. If you are the owner of the business, you've got more money to put in the pocket. If you are the labor, well, you just got 50% chance to lose your job, and even if you keep your job, the competition will keep your wage low. This is basically why corporations are pushing for the deal and ordinary people are demonstrating against it.
What if your business is losing 20 million a year without manufacturing partly overseas?
You are too young to remember the poor quality of the Big 3 autos in the 80's.
I’m not opposed to discussing the pros and cons of *particular* FTAs vs. the overall concept of Free Trade either, if anyone feels strongly about TPP, TTIP, NAFTA, etc. One other thing Gardner said was that if we reject Free Trade, we’re basically handing the reins to China to decide the direction Globalization will take.
Thank you.
TPP was designed largely to counterbalance China's power in getting more deeply integrated into the economies of other Asian countries. It is designed, essentially, to up the ante for an Asian country in picking sides if there ever is a bilateral conflict in terms of the American and Chinese spheres of influences.
There is a reason why China is not a member of it, China doesn't have to be a member. Their economical power is YUGE enough to not care. They say the purpose of TPP is to box China. Yes and No. it is a political correct PR way to sell the deal, in a fact, it has little to do with China.
LOL, let's see which country can really contain China? I say zero. we are going to see more and more of Chinese influence in the future. With mass immigrants and Americans dependence on their cheap ass products.
Great comments so far. Gotta go, will look later tonight.
One more: can you maintain Free Trade Agreements while strongly enforcing border security and making "Buy American Hire American" the guiding principle?
Great comments so far. Gotta go, will look later tonight.
One more: can you maintain Free Trade Agreements while strongly enforcing border security and making "Buy American Hire American" the guiding principle?
Let's look at this following example,
Let's say a factory is closing in Indiana and moving to Mexico because the product can be made with lower paid labor and no penalty (free trade, remember) for shipping it back to the US. Sure cheaper cars, smartphones and televisions are a good thing but first you have to have a job to buy one... and the jobs are all in some other country.
However, During the Great Depression, the US government decided to raise tariffs to protect jobs. Other nations retaliated. As a result US exports dropped by 61%!
So balance is the key. How to achieve the balance? That is the million dollars question!
I assume you cannot ONLY buy Americans and ONLY hire Americans. I think foreign investors should build companies, or factors here in the united states, (Now, this is the important part, they should only be allowed to do so if they bring in minimal foreign workers) If americans adopt the deregulations policies and simplify corporate tax code, then these policies will boost economy.
Think about this scenario, following Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, China had a lot of pro foreign investment policies. I shall know, although I was only four at the time, my grandpa went to China and made a lot of money over there. Now, that we have manufacture here in the United states, situation is so much more difficult because we have all these rules, regulations, tax. (potential lawsuits this and that)
America should make investors friendly again. balance is the key balance balance balance.
Anthony Gardner, former US ambassador to the EU, said on NPR this morning that: Globalization could be defined as:
worldwide interconnection by removal of significant cultural and legal barriers
the pooling of states' sovereignty into a supranational organization
Globalization is not the same as globalism. Gardner's definition conflates globalization with globalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepenthe
Is it possible for a rational person to be simultaneously “for” Free Trade as an idea and “against” Globalism as an idea,...
Sure, it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepenthe
...is it possible in practice for Free Trade to exist without an embrace of Globalization?
No, because trade -- plus foreign investment by BRICS, is what is driving globalization,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepenthe
How do you feel about Free Trade, Globalism and Globalization, and strong borders vs. the right to migrate, etc.?
Globalization will reduce the need to migrate.
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.
