Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
paxamericana

The end of Globalization, the rise of Economic Nationalism

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

Intellectual property transfer through joint venture, cyber theft, various other form of espioanage etc...

Well, yes that's part of it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. What are you talking about ?  China created a middle class bigger than anywhere in the world.

2. It was never designed to 'transfer' wealth.  The zero-sum game view is wrong, managed trade deals are win-win.

3. Unskilled labour will not be helped by economic nationalism, since they don't have marketable skills.  They would be helped by socialism, but good luck selling them that.  

1.) What are you talking about? It's my understanding that a majority of the population in China, particularly in rural regions, remains impoverished by Western standards. Hmmm...

2.) Of course it was designed to transfer wealth. That was the entire point of globalization. Managed trade deals aren't win-win. They're increasingly about investor protection and boosting profits at the expense of consumers. Have you read anything about Joseph Stiglitz's critique of the TPP,. (See link below.) And he won a Nobel prize in economics. You?

3.) Why has unskilled labor been so favored under globalization despite a lack of supposedly marketable skills? Oh yeah, lower wages.

You seem to have become entranced by the big lie. Dream on....

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/tpp-is-about-many-things-but-free-trade-not-so-much/article27169740/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, paxamericana said:

China made it a zero sum game. Look at their predatory economics...

China didn't design the system. It was largely designed and promoted by corporate interests in the developed West. China simply realized that it could benefit from the system and has done so. But the big winners are the corporate elites and financiers who sit in boardrooms in Western economic capitals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, turningrite said:

China didn't design the system. It was largely designed and promoted by corporate interests in the developed West. China simply realized that it could benefit from the system and has done so. But the big winners are the corporate elites and financiers who sit in boardrooms in Western economic capitals.

Fair enough, either way the end result of their corporate greed and globalist agenda is what got us here. You are 100 percent correct, the one who wins is the corporation. The global elite are pulling out the gloves for their fight with trump. The same global elite that owns CNN MSNBC NYT Whasington post etc...They don't care what happens, they make just as much money going up as going down. They've been putting America in a managed state of decline since China joined the WTO. 

Everybody was saying that the rise of China is the second law of thermodynamic, it was natural... we nationalist say nope it ain't. Trump's doing something about it now. The Chinese built their house on a very sandy foundation and they know it. In one fell swoop and we can destroy their entire plan. You'll see. If China keeps this up then they will see all their industrial base leave to other countries with no consumer service economy to replace it. 

 

 

Edited by paxamericana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

The Chinese built their house on a very rocky foundation and they know it. In one fell swoop we can destroy their entire plan. You'll see. If China keeps this up then they will see all their industrial base leave to other countries with no consumer service economy to replace it.

The Chinese are smart. They have a lot more leverage in this fight than many might imagine to be the case. I believe they are among the largest foreign holders (maybe the largest?) of U.S. government bonds. They could wreak havoc on America's public finances if squeezed too hard on trade. I agree that the WTO system is problematic and needs reform but I suspect Trump's current strategy is to attack allies and countries that have more-or-less fair trading relationships with the U.S. in order to make it appear that he's not specifically attacking China. The U.S., and the rest of the West in general, is going to have to negotiate carefully with China. We're not in a position to call all the shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, turningrite said:

The Chinese are smart. They have a lot more leverage in this fight than many might imagine to be the case. I believe they are among the largest foreign holders (maybe the largest?) of U.S. government bonds. They could wreak havoc on America's public finances if squeezed too hard on trade. I agree that the WTO system is problematic and needs reform but I suspect Trump's current strategy is to attack allies and countries that have more-or-less fair trading relationships with the U.S. in order to make it appear that he's not specifically attacking China. The U.S., and the rest of the West in general, is going to have to negotiate carefully with China. We're not in a position to call all the shots.

You think so? I disagree, I think the US is in a great position to make unilateral demand as Trump has demonstrated. To be fair there are reformist inside of xi's own party who sees the pitfall of his plan. I don't think the Chinese will stop buying american monetary backing especially when they are using it to prevent inflation. If they sell off US greenbacks or stop buying it then their currency would go into free fall causing mass inflation and an even faster deflation like what we saw happen to Russia and Iran. Though this isn't really the goal though, we're just trying to get them to change course. We're not interested in collapsing 1.3 billion people back into chaos and poverty but if its got to be done then Trump's the guy to do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

You think so? I disagree, I think the US is in a great position to make unilateral demand as Trump has demonstrated. To be fair there are reformist inside of xi's own party who sees the pitfall of his plan. I don't think the Chinese will stop buying american monetary backing especially when they are using it to prevent inflation. If they sell off US greenbacks or stop buying it then their currency would go into free fall causing mass inflation and an even faster deflation like what we saw happen to Russia and Iran. Though this isn't really the goal though, we're just trying to get them to change course. We're not interested in collapsing 1.3 billion people back into chaos and poverty but if its got to be done then Trump's the guy to do it. 

Once China developed a sufficiently large internal economy, why wouldn't it be able to survive without access to the American market? It would be an adjustment, for sure, but I think you're underestimating Chinese ingenuity, reach and influence. Russia and Iran are economic minnows compared to China, which along with the U.S. is now the biggest fish in the global economic sea. Many economic commentators have commented about the leverage China holds as a result of its strategy of gaining a financial foothold in America. I think the Americans underestimate the Chinese at their own peril. Trump is boxing with China, throwing a few punches here and there but then pulling back. He's not in control and I suspect he and his advisors know this.

By the way, what have Trump's trade demands illustrated? With what countries has he made any significant deals or obtained real concessions? International negotiations, as it turns out, aren't the same as real estate or casino deals.

 

Edited by turningrite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, turningrite said:

Once China developed a sufficiently large internal economy, why wouldn't it be able to survive without access to the American market? It would be an adjustment, for sure, but I think you're underestimating Chinese ingenuity, reach and influence. Russia and Iran are economic minnows compared to China, which along with the U.S. is now the biggest fish in the global economic sea. Many economic commentators have commented about the leverage China holds as a result of its strategy of gaining a financial foothold in America. I think the Americans underestimate the Chinese at their own peril. Trump is boxing with China, throwing a few punches here and there but then pulling back. He's not in control and I suspect he and his advisors know this.

By the way, what have Trump's trade demands illustrated? With what countries has he made any significant deals or obtained real concessions? International negotiations, as it turns out, aren't the same as real estate or casino deals.

 

From my travels to china in the recent past I don't think westerners understand how difficult it is for china to change to a service consumer based industry. They lack viable lending institusion that allow westerner to fully exceed their typical consumption. Many especially the one with money in the older generation are extremely frugal not wanting to spend their lifetime of saving on expensively tariffed goods. While at the same time preferring western products to home made one. This is why they prefer to spend money overseas. 

 Second they lack stable institution that encourages freedom of thought and ideas. Hence they are not very good a innovation. This is a systemic problem and can not be solves overnight let alone in a generation. It will take a complete liberalisation and the embrace of democracy to become innovators. Many that left china to pursue a western education often do not wish to return once they've been injected with freedom. 

While it is important to not underestimate them we should also not overestimate as well.

 

As for Trump's negotiation tactic on trade we will have to wait and see. I know he is waiting until after the midterms of 2018 before signing on new trade agreements. 

If the nato summit is anything to prove I think we will be seeing some good results. 

Edited by paxamericana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, turningrite said:

1.) What are you talking about? It's my understanding that a majority of the population in China, particularly in rural regions, remains impoverished by Western standards. Hmmm...

2.) Of course it was designed to transfer wealth. That was the entire point of globalization. Managed trade deals aren't win-win. They're increasingly about investor protection and boosting profits at the expense of consumers. Have you read anything about Joseph Stiglitz's critique of the TPP,. (See link below.) And he won a Nobel prize in economics. You?

3.) Why has unskilled labor been so favored under globalization despite a lack of supposedly marketable skills? Oh yeah, lower wages.

You seem to have become entranced by the big lie. Dream on....

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/tpp-is-about-many-things-but-free-trade-not-so-much/article27169740/

1) Please provide a cite for your understanding.

Here's one from McKinsey and Company consulting: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/mapping-chinas-middle-class

Quote

The explosive growth of China’s emerging middle class has brought sweeping economic change and social transformation—and it’s not over yet. By 2022, our research suggests, more than 75 percent of China’s urban consumers will earn 60,000 to 229,000 renminbi ($9,000 to $34,000) a year.1 In purchasing-power-parity terms, that range is between the average income of Brazil and Italy. Just 4 percent of urban Chinese households were within it in 2000—but 68 percent were in 2012.2In the decade ahead, the middle class’s continued expansion will be powered by labor-market and policy initiatives that push wages up, financial reforms that stimulate employment and income growth, and the rising role of private enterprise, which should encourage productivity and help more income accrue to households.3Should all this play out as expected, urban-household income will at least double by 2022.

2) 'Boosting profits' IS the design.  'Transfer wealth' is an ancillary effect by your own words here.  I will read your link, but you are using 'appeal to authority' in an obvious way here.  Economic orthodoxy has long favoured open trade.

3) A better way to ask this question is "what jobs have not been impacted, or have had lower impacts and why".  The answer would be because they are in very high demand, or they can't be outsourced for practical or legal reasons.

Calling economic orthodoxy a 'big lie' is a red flag for me.  Do you believe in conspiracies, because that is tantamount to what you are saying.  Centuries of literature, peer-reviewed academic research backed up by studies and mathematics can't be faked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Please provide a cite for your understanding.

Here's one from McKinsey and Company consulting: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/mapping-chinas-middle-class

2) 'Boosting profits' IS the design.  'Transfer wealth' is an ancillary effect by your own words here.  I will read your link, but you are using 'appeal to authority' in an obvious way here.  Economic orthodoxy has long favoured open trade.

3) A better way to ask this question is "what jobs have not been impacted, or have had lower impacts and why".  The answer would be because they are in very high demand, or they can't be outsourced for practical or legal reasons.

Calling economic orthodoxy a 'big lie' is a red flag for me.  Do you believe in conspiracies, because that is tantamount to what you are saying.  Centuries of literature, peer-reviewed academic research backed up by studies and mathematics can't be faked.

1.) I reference below statistics from the Quora website, which indicates that 800 million Chinese continue to live in mainly rural provinces that remain impoverished based on objective international comparisons.

2.) "Economic orthodoxy has long favoured open trade." Well, of course it has. That's my point. It's self-interest. The dispossessed don't get to have a say about economic orthodoxy, do they?

3.) My point, of course, is that if there were not a demand for low-skilled labor, jobs that require such labor wouldn't have moved to the developing world in the first place. You can't have it both ways. The singular attraction in moving these jobs was to lower input costs (Do you understand the term?), which, where labor intensive manufacturing is concerned, mainly means lowering wages. This is pretty logical. Politicians, the ever useful agents of the corporate classes, have done everything in their power to pave the way in this process.

If reading things you don't like serves to raise red flags for you, perhaps you need to examine whether you should visit websites where often contentious issues are openly debated. I'm not alleging a conspiracy here. The intent and processes of globalization are out in the open for all to see, particularly as the perverse consequences become more apparent. Finally, I think you're absorbed in reading materials that sustain your own views. I believe this tendency is called bias confirmation. I think you need to broaden your perspective. I note here that you haven't commented on the blistering critique of recent trade deals like the TPP by respected economists like Stiglitz. I guess winning a Nobel counts for little in your world view where "Centuries of literature, peer-reviewed academic research backed up by studies and mathematics can't be faked." But the ones with which you don't agree can apparently be ignored. Academia research and debate is all about challenging orthodoxy, not confirming it, as in the latter case you would appear to prefer.

https://www.quora.com/Is-China-rich-or-poor-Why

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) The article does not say 800 M 'impoverished' that I can see.  It says 1/3 of China is wealthy,  ("So a third of Chinese population can already be categorized as being relatively rich by world standard.")  The rest of the article is TLDR.

2) How is a body of academic study - economics - "self-interest" ?   Why do the 'dispossessed' have any particular say in any area of study ?  Do you count poor grad students ?  

3) Of course there is demand, but you have to compete on a world market and there a lot of people in the word who are low-skilled.  Most of them can't afford a house or a car.  Yes the attraction - and the goal - was to 'reduce costs'.  It was not designed to transfer wealth, that's mis-stating it.  Nobody went to the wealthy industrialists with a plan to help the poor.  And you mention the 'corporate classes', which is Marxist talk... and again nudges me to thinking that Trumpists are just one socialist article away from going hard left.

When you say that 'dispossessed' people entering economics would change the results of economics...  ( Did you say that ?  Or just imply it ? ) ...then you are alleging that there is a conspiracy afoot somewhere.  The truth is being suppressed, effectively.  

I'm not absorbed in reading materials that sustain "my" views.  These are things that have been studied for decades, and you are rejecting the field of economics.  I am not taking a stand as to whether globalism is 'good' or 'bad'.  It has its effects, but you appear to be ignorant of the prevailing knowledge on trade and its effects, and willing to buy into what Trump is selling.

To your credit, there was a president recently who went against the economics pundits on his own, and he was warned against quantitative easing, but it worked out pretty well.  I'll look at that Siglitz link some time.  I don't have confirmation bias - I listen to any respected economist, and they don't all agree with each other all the time but they are NOT politicians, and they are far from demagoguery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz#Clinton_administration

Seems to have a lot of contradictions, but he was in the Clinton administration so how bad could he be ?  :lol:

Quote

Advice for United States[edit]

Contrary to Keynesian theory and these analyses on the eurozone, he argues that the United States must continue to adapt to the "ever-changing realities of comparative advantage", must not rebalance the trade account and can no longer apply protectionist measures to protect or recreate the well-paying manufacturing jobs. The United States must simply agree to be the "losers", saying: "The very Americans who have been among the losers of globalization stand to be among the losers of a reversal of globalization. History cannot be put into reverse".[88]

However, contrary to these statements, he admits that as the trade deficit declines "GDP would rise and unemployment would fall", further stating: "Countries that import more than they export contributes to the weakness of their economie".[86] He notes that trade deficits caused by free trade destroy manufacturing jobs: the increase in the "value of the dollar will lead to larger trade deficits and fewer manufacturing jobs".[89] Moreover, he admits that if manufacturing industry recovers through protectionists measures, skilled jobs would be created, even if they would be fewer and different from the manufacturing jobs lost in recent decades: "Advanced manufacturing technologies, including robots, mean that the few jobs created will require higher skills and will be placed in different locations from the jobs lost".[89]

Contrary to most economists historians, who argue that tariffs have played only a minor role or not at all in the Great Depression,[90][91][92] Stiglitz thinks that the United States should not protect its economy because tariffs contributed to the Great Depression: "Following that, U.S. exports fell by some 50 percent—contributing to our Great Depression".[88]

He denounces neoliberalism[93] but yet advises the United States to pursue free trade (deregulation or liberalization of foreign trade)[94] which is considered to be a constitutive policy of neoliberalism.[95]

According to him, it is not China (which has a large trade surplus) that makes "trade war", but the United States (which has a large trade deficit) if they try to rebalance trade account through tariffs. He defends China's trade surpluses at the expense of the United States and believes that China will "respond with strength and intelligence" and hit the United States "where it hurts economically and politically" if the United States try to protect their industry

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2018 at 4:20 PM, paxamericana said:

Brexit is just the start, Look at italy, France, Czech, Trump is much more than Trump he's part of the populist anti-globalist movement. 

Brexit pre-dates Trump.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitalism is world-wide and will remain so.    The games the thieves play don't alter that.

Edited by Penderyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2018 at 4:52 PM, Wilber said:

Paxamericana apparently thinks Rupert Murdoch is a populist who cares about the hoi poloi. Funny.

no he's a globalist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

Yes and ?

Well, you go on about the

Quote

global elite that owns CNN MSNBC NYT Whasington post etc..

Wouldn't Faux be one of the etc? Seeing as it is owned by one of that global elite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Well, you go on about the

Wouldn't Faux be one of the etc? Seeing as it is owned by one of that global elite.

Yes I've said this already, globalist are both left and right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

Yes I've said this already, globalist are both left and right. 

So? What is that supposed to mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2018 at 8:39 PM, paxamericana said:

It is interesting to see that globalization has created a backlash movement of populism. The wave of populism is dictated by economic nationalism not Isolationism. Here is a good explanation of what's to come. 

 

When I used to voice concerns about globalisation l was referred to as a no good commie. I suppose now I'll be called a no good commie for mocking right wing concerns.

Right wingers really are the stupidest effing homos on the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Commie homo sympathizer! 

Actually the right and left suffer from globalist tendency. Just as socialism is not exclusively left. Far right wing fascist groups are socialist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, paxamericana said:

Commie homo sympathizer! 

Actually the right and left suffer from globalist tendency. Just as socialism is not exclusively left. Far right wing fascist groups are socialist.

Bullshit. Every fucking right whiner bar none were 100% for globalisation when it was being rammed down our throats. More to the point though every fucking last one of them who defended it did so laughing their silly asses off at any lefty who questioned it.

Stupid morons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Bullshit. Every fucking right whiner bar none were 100% for globalisation when it was being rammed down our throats. More to the point though every fucking last one of them who defended it did so laughing their silly asses off at any lefty who questioned it.

Stupid morons.

I'm pro economic nationalist for countries who don't play by the rules. As for Canada though, It should be absorbed and globalized by manifest destiny. Canada should not remain a separate foreign entity when it comes to trade. There should be complete open borders with the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...