Searching for Capitalism in the Wreckage of Globalization. How we distorted free trade.

I pretty much stopped here:

quote:

---

This system of mutual dependence between capital and labor, not mere “economic freedom,” is what Adam Smith so ably described. Globalization destroys it, instead urging the owners of mobile capital to forsake the interests of their fellow citizens and search for higher profits through labor arbitrage abroad.

---

Businesses don't care about the "interests of their fellow citizens." They never have, and nor do individuals care about their fellow citizens. Not in a way that overrides their wallet.

quote:

---

I pretty much stopped here:

---

Check out this gem....

"Capitalism locks everyone in a room together and encourages them to find a way out."

quote:

---

greedy corporations dont give two fricks about America,

---

Neither do greedy consumers.

quote:

---

Well research and presented.

---

It explains the difference between libertarian and conservative economics. It's the same with limited Gov(conservative) vs no Gov(Libertarian)

quote:

---

quote:
Well research and presented.


It explains the difference between libertarian and conservative economics. It's the same with limited Gov(conservative) vs no Gov(Libertarian)

---

quote:

---

When Clinton allowed China in the World Trade Organization,

---

The GOP was in on that too. In fact, Bush went to Boeing factory and talked about how he agreed with Clinton.

85 Senators voted FOR PNTR of China.

They all lied or were horribly misinformed by the modern push after the cold war for mass globalization which is the anti-thesis of capitalism.

Here are some words from those who pushed for China in to the WTO.

“China will open its markets to American products from wheat to cars to consulting services, and our companies will be far more able to sell goods without moving factories or investments there.” Bill Clinton

Sold an out right lie.

Bill Archer (R-TX-7), the lead sponsor of the bill, remarked, “The American people support this agreement because they know it’s good for jobs in America and good for human rights and the development of democracy in China.”

Bush “This is a time of great opportunity. What some call globalization is in fact the triumph of human liberty across national borders.”

Brett Lippencott, Policy Analyst The Heritage Foundation: “Economic freedom is the best road to freeing the Chinese from the political control of the Communist Party. The U.S. should remain committed to its ideals of free trade and human rights not by imposing trade sanctions on China, but by reaching out to those Chinese who want freedom no less than do Americans. The best way to do this is to continue trading with China. China’s MFN status should be maintained without condition.”



Then-National Security Council senior staff member Kenneth Lieberthal projected in 2000 that the U.S. trade deficit with China would shrink with the agreement in place.

The deficit with China expanded dramatically beginning in the early 2000s, from an average of $34 billion in the 1990s to 349 BILLION by 2008. in 2022, it reached 578 BILLION.



In other words, they changed aspects of free trade and sold the US on things that they either knew would not happen, or they were just that dumb!

That ain’t happening

This shouldn’t be a shocking revelation to anyone but sadly many on this board will be in complete denial.

Trying to retcon "capitalism" as "state enforced regulation" is such a take by the board's "conservatives".

Not only are you arguing economic leftism, you're using Leftist rhetoric in redefining words to get there

The analysis and study of trade and capitalism started with Adam Smith, it didn't end there.

His citation of this quote from Ricardo:

quote:

---

“the fancied or real insecurity of capital, when not under the immediate control of its owner, together with the natural disinclination which every man has to quit the country of his birth and connexions, and intrust himself with all his habits fixed, to a strange government and new laws, checks the immigration of capital.”

---

Illustrates this anachronism.

As the pro-capitalism/anti-Leftists on this board have noted early and often, this protectionist-leftist paradigm will require economic devolution (which will then lead to devolution in things like prosperity, SOL, etc.). The ability to engage in international trade at such efficiency was incomprehensible to someone like Ricardo. This fear of "a strange government and new laws" has been eliminated, which removes that "check on the immigration of capital.".

The entire world has benefited from this paradigm shift, and, to the chagrin of the dishonest rhetoric of the modern protectionists, the US the most of all.

quote:

---

In short, Smith and Ricardo stated their propositions in terms incompatible with modern globalization. Both assumed that capital would remain in the domestic market.

---

This author completely fails to properly explain why they assumed this. This isn't so shocking, being at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution that would soon overtake the developed world was the largest societal and economic development since we started forming societies 12k years ago. The IR (along with realizing the power of petro) tore down prior established inefficiencies in international trade. We could (1) make exponentially more goods and (2) ship them around the world more easily.

quote:

---

The result is that the modern economist often plays the role of Wile E. Coyote, pressing confidently forward with plans that, unbeknownst to him, have no actual support. Except it is not his own well-being but that of countless American workers, families, and communities that risks a plunge into the canyon below. Still, the effect of forcing the economist to look down can be striking.

---

These arguments always avoid criticizing the stubborn few who reject development and make bad decisions and refuse to change. That is not a problem of the "modern economist" and is a problem of those in the "canyon below", as it always has been.

Again, this was not a controversial talking point pre-MAGA when discussing the economic plight of black Americans. Once MAGA shifted hte focus to white Americans (specifically in areas we associate with halcyon Americana), THEN the flipping to leftism began and MAGA abandoned their prior principles on the issue (however, I imagine if we still focused on only black people, they would revert back, in double-hypocrisy).

quote:

---

If we want capitalism to deliver broad-based, rising prosperity in America, then we must have a well-theorized understanding of the conditions under which it will succeed. A model focused on ensuring that wealthy people can earn the greatest possible return on their capital is not capitalism; it’s oligarchy, and its track record is quite poor. Capitalism works for capital, labor, and consumers when all are indispensable to each other’s goals and each gains from their achievement. Interdependence is what translates the pursuit of private profit into public benefit.

---

Again, he completely glosses over the benefits of consumers, notably lower prices. Dishonesty abounds.

quote:

---

An indispensable element for maintaining this interdependence is the bounding of the market, so that the various economic actors have no alternative to each other. In a bounded market, economic analysis and legal treatment of activity depends on whether it occurs within the boundary, across it, or beyond it. That boundary might hypothetically take any form, but in practice it will be a physical boundary, typically a national one. By contrast, globalization and its underlying theory make the goal a boundless market, in which borders have as little relevance as possible to economic transactions.

---

This argument in picture form:



We tried this experiment a few times in the 20th century. Separated populations by "bounded markets" and free markets. Do we really need to discuss which option was better for the various participants?

quote:

---

A bounded market is not an isolated one; goods and services, capital, and people can enter and exit. But their flows are controlled, and for a well-functioning capitalist system the principle of control is balance.

---

Regulation is now "capitalism"?

Look at what you're promoting "conservatives". Literal leftism.

quote:

---

Through restrictions on trade or capital flows, public policy can force imports and exports into balance, so that goods and services are exchanged for each other rather than for financial instruments. Increased fulfillment of domestic demand via foreign labor (imports) would occur only alongside a parallel increase in foreign demand for domestic labor (exports). Inflows and outflows of capital would equalize as well. Balance imposes the necessary interdependence on labor and capital while also allowing for the actual benefits of trade that Smith and Ricardo described.

---

So we now look for the government to make the decisions on what economic activity is best for the population?

In what fricking world do y'all trust unelected bureaucrats and admin policymakers to make these decisions?

quote:

---

Similarly, while limits on globalization’s cross-border flows are not the only constraints capitalism requires, they can reduce the need for other interventions. Competition policy, investment policy, labor policy, and financial regulation, for example, all play roles as well in creating the conditions in which the invisible hand leads the individual “to employ his capital in the manner in which it is likely to afford the greatest support to domestic industry, and to give revenue and employment to the greatest number of people of his own country.” Greater returns must not be available through the pursuit of monopoly rents or financial speculation. Incentives must exist to reward innovation and expansion that generates a high ratio of public to private returns. Workers must possess sufficient power in the labor market to advance their interests. .

---

Holy fricking shite. Literally European-style socialism with forced union/labor onto industry.

quote:

---

Globalization makes all this much harder,

---

Yeah, good.

quote:

---

while a bounded market lessens the need for government action on these fronts

---

So we need government to regulate the entire market so that we can then tell people we will then need less government