[Zamuel]

Apparently globalism is a dirty word. The US has ceded it's role as leader of "globalism" in favor of isolationism being served up with an American flag wrapped around it.

Right now yeah, the neo-left pushed it to far, to fast. The present slow down is probably a good thing. It's allowing the support base to broaden while the US and the UK catch their breath and stabilize their financial I/O. Your right about the present isolationist tendencies, but I think they are severely limited by the humanist ideologies (environmental and human rights) that have been diverted to resisting Trump. They remain fairly strong as evidenced by the huge outcry about family unity at the border.

Zam

[Godstud]

Capitalism and the advancement of technology has pushed globalism far more than, "neo-left" ever did. It is clearly the availability of cheap, rapid and reliable communications that permitted globalisation and is the key to the integration of the international capital market.

Also, we've benefited greatly from globalism, and the benefits outweigh any disadvantages.

Nationalism, on the other hand, has been the cause of some far greater problems, and history speaks volumes on this.

Trump knows nothing about economics. He knows nothing about diplomacy. He hires the worst people for the wrong jobs. He's not a fantastic businessman, but simply a good promoter, as Jimjam said.

[Justin_S]

Also, we've benefited greatly from globalism, and the benefits outweigh any disadvantages.

Nationalism, on the other hand, has been the cause of some far greater problems, and history speaks volumes on this.

Hi! I'm new here, just gonna put in my two cents.

Isn't nationalism precisely the kind of disadvantage that globalism incurs? It's all a matter of backlash, really, of the fear inspired by the free movement of economic & cultural capital, which prompts people to think up "Nations" and find ways to combat what they believe are destructive, erosive forces. Guess my point here is that globalism and nationalism aren't too readily separable, since the latter can be seen as part & parcel of the former.

Which is funny, because a fair number of conservatives wanna speak both for economic freedom and for social homogeneity, two things which seem broadly incompatible given that they tend to debase each other.

[Steve_American]

Under the rules of the gold standard, back then a nation had to maintain a trade surplus or at least not a deficit; that is, to maintain their current reserves of gold they had to do this.
Would someone please explain to this layman why it is Now that no one seems to care that the US has a constant trade deficit? If it was a bad or a terrible thing back then, why it is not a bad thing now? And this goes for a nation like Greece too.

Everyone seeทs to think the US can keep hemorrhaging dollars with a foreign trade deficit forever with no down side.
[OTOH, everyone seems to think the US can NOT keep borrowing money forever, that there will certainly be a reckoning day someday.]

I really promise that I am open to your understanding of why this is so. I want to know.

[One Degree]

Hi! I'm new here, just gonna put in my two cents.

Isn't nationalism precisely the kind of disadvantage that globalism incurs? It's all a matter of backlash, really, of the fear inspired by the free movement of economic & cultural capital, which prompts people to think up "Nations" and find ways to combat what they believe are destructive, erosive forces. Guess my point here is that globalism and nationalism aren't too readily separable, since the latter can be seen as part & parcel of the former.

Which is funny, because a fair number of conservatives wanna speak both for economic freedom and for social homogeneity, two things which seem broadly incompatible given that they tend to debase each other.

Global trade does not require global travel or open borders. It does not require the WTO. There is no incompatibility.
Global trade should not be seen as specializing based upon income by country. We should provide jobs for all our own people even if someone else is willing to do it cheaper. We live in a world where the ‘bottom line’ is suppose to be the goal. Why? Taking care of our own should be the goal.

[Godstud]

@One Degree That's what CAPITALISM is all about. What are you... some kind of Commie?

[Zagadka]

We live in a world where the ‘bottom line’ is suppose to be the goal. Why? Taking care of our own should be the goal.

Where do you frame public services, including health care, in that? Where do you draw the lines of "taking care of our own"? The country? State? County? Who decides what community self-determines? I generally believe in decentralized government and focusing on local issues, but it is a question that I can't answer.

We do not live in a vacuum. What is happening in other countries - mainly our neighbors and allies - has great impact on how we treat and trade with them in ways beyond jobs or even economy in general.

[One Degree]

Where do you frame public services, including health care, in that? Where do you draw the lines of "taking care of our own"? The country? State? County? Who decides what community self-determines? I generally believe in decentralized government and focusing on local issues, but it is a question that I can't answer.

We do not live in a vacuum. What is happening in other countries - mainly our neighbors and allies - has great impact on how we treat and trade with them in ways beyond jobs or even economy in general.

Obviously, I decide.
Your questions are legitimate and is why I felt the need for my ideology. We need accepted guidelines for how autonomy is determined. There must be guidelines that eliminate border confusion and give the perception of equality.
As far as your second paragraph, I simply disagree and cross this off as unnecessary moral superiority. If you have something I want to trade for, why does it require you accepting my beliefs?

[Zagadka]

I don't find an ideological answer to borders of communities. There will be constant struggles on every level. The US is different from California is different between LA and Orange Counties which are different to, frequently, valleys or geographic communities, then cities, then home owner associations. They will all want their own autonomy, and at some level you are not representing a lot of people.

You also ignored my question about healthcare and similar public initiatives.

It isn't about accepting beliefs. If you have a house in a city, you are part of the community, and your actions and those of neighbors affect each other.

[One Degree]

I don't find an ideological answer to borders of communities. There will be constant struggles on every level. The US is different from California is different between LA and Orange Counties which are different to, frequently, valleys or geographic communities, then cities, then home owner associations. They will all want their own autonomy, and at some level you are not representing a lot of people.

You also ignored my question about healthcare and similar public initiatives.

It isn't about accepting beliefs. If you have a house in a city, you are part of the community, and your actions and those of neighbors affect each other.

There should only be one level of government and one community. The heirarchy and overlap needs removed. This is why I suggest boundaries like one Degree by one degree. We need to combine government and community at a level that is economically viable but not too large for community. There should be no neighborhood regulations or regulations from a higher representative government. The same guidelines for everyone who lives in the autonomous area.

[blackjack21]

To beat a narcissistic man-child in a trade war is really not a big challenge.

If he's in charge of the largest economy in the world, it may present a few challenges.

The U.S. is now behaving in ways that could all too easily lead to a breakdown of the whole trading system and a drastic, disruptive reduction in world trade.

Cool. The open borders people are willing to pay that price, and opponents of them are too. That's what needs to happen.

Yet Trump appears to believe that the whole world will bow down to American economic power and his deal-making prowess.

They have been able to get away with a lot for decades. So it will require a negative sum situation to correct it. Both of us have to lose for awhile, one more than the other. That's the nature of war.

The fact our trading partners preferred Obama to Trump should be a clue whose policies benefit the US.

That's a very good point. The adversaries of America always warn us that we'll be laughed at by Europeans, etc. Who the hell cares?

Yes, it should be a great big clue that Trump's a fucking moron, and going to damage American trade, along with the economy, with his myopic policies. Get a clue.

Now you're concern trolling about American economic well being? If we want to destroy our own economy, that's our choice.

No, but it does lead to some very stupid and regrettable things. Nationalism led to Nazi Germany.

By that logic, internationalism led to the Soviet Union and Maoist China, which was far worse in terms of death tolls.

The US will be seen by the rest of the world, excepting Russia, as, like Donald, being unable to work and play well with others. We will be relegated to a marginal role in world trade while the rest of the world fills the void left by our exit from the stage.

Donald's tactics worked well with the Republican party because he was able to create a dynamic where unless you flattered his ego and kissed his ass, your $ would wither and you would not be reelected.

Trump's tactics worked, because he attacked an unpopular establishment and reflected the frustrations of his supporters. He did it within the Republican party too.

Let's face it, who, other than suck ups, would even want to be in the same room with this mental case.

Anybody serious about competition would revel at the opportunity. That's what makes Trump worthwhile. The establishment Republicans and Democrats were just two sides of the same coin. Jeb Bush would only be marginally different from Hillary Clinton. The neoconservatives and neoliberals are two sides of the same coin, but they lost the 2016 US presidential election for the first time since the Reagan era.

Also, we've benefited greatly from globalism, and the benefits outweigh any disadvantages.

That's easy to say in Bangkok, but not so much in Detroit.

Nationalism, on the other hand, has been the cause of some far greater problems, and history speaks volumes on this.

Yes, we know the Jews got the short end of the stick. That happens throughout history for reasons that have nothing to do with nationalism per se.

Trump knows nothing about economics.

He went to UPenn Wharton. He probably knows more than you do.

[Justin_S]

Global trade does not require global travel or open borders. It does not require the WTO. There is no incompatibility.
Global trade should not be seen as specializing based upon income by country. We should provide jobs for all our own people even if someone else is willing to do it cheaper. We live in a world where the ‘bottom line’ is suppose to be the goal. Why? Taking care of our own should be the goal.

Yes, global exchange of goods does not require any sort of global exchange of people, but I'd be hard-pressed to find a historical scenario in which one didn't eventually lead to the other; moreover, even if there are a few, I doubt they've been very common, or that they're even possible nowadays as more than a flash in the pan.

The tide of globalization is both non-discriminating and non-ideological, in the sense that it invites anyone of economic import to participate, regardless of background. So in order to have pragmatic value, an ideology can't deny this; it needs to find its footing at the logical conclusion of globalism, which usually involves acknowledging some sort of cultural exchange as complementary to the economic.

I wouldn't quite say I'm a liberal in the American or even the European sense, and I doubt we're approaching an "end of history" or anything like that; but I equally doubt the possibility of regression, at least regression to the point where globalism no longer threatens cultural homogeneity.

[One Degree]

Yes, global exchange of goods does not require any sort of global exchange of people, but I'd be hard-pressed to find a historical scenario in which one didn't eventually lead to the other; moreover, even if there are a few, I doubt they've been very common, or that they're even possible nowadays as more than a flash in the pan.

The tide of globalization is both non-discriminating and non-ideological, in the sense that it invites anyone of economic import to participate, regardless of background. So in order to have pragmatic value, an ideology can't deny this; it needs to find its footing at the logical conclusion of globalism, which usually involves acknowledging some sort of cultural exchange as complementary to the economic.

I wouldn't quite say I'm a liberal in the American or even the European sense, and I doubt we're approaching an "end of history" or anything like that; but I equally doubt the possibility of regression, at least regression to the point where globalism no longer threatens cultural homogeneity.

Yes, people are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past if they accept those mistakes as inevitable simply because they happened. The world population was around 500 million when extensive exploration and trade began. Why do you think the same norms should be accepted in a world of almost 8 billion? The only reason for world cultural homogeneity is so we are not inconvenienced in our unnecessary travels. A terrible price to pay for selfish interests imo.

[jimjam]

Unsurprisingly Donald's personal economics are not so dumb.

Donald has a well-documented history of cheating governments. He went to extraordinary lengths to block an audit of how much money he owed New York City in 1986 on the Grand Hyatt Hotel, for which he got a 40-year tax break but agreed to pay the city a share of the hotel’s profits. Mr. Trump’s lawyers claimed that no audit was allowed and there was no requirement to keep business records. Aides then broke appointments with the city auditor general’s team. Mr. Trump’s lawyers asserted that a water pipe break destroyed the records and that ledger copies in Chicago were no longer available.

[jimjam]

Yes, we know the Jews got the short end of the stick. That happens throughout history for reasons that have nothing to do with nationalism per se

No way does this have anything to do with nationalism. It is simply a German marching club.

[Steve_American]

Under the rules of the gold standard, back then a nation had to maintain a trade surplus or at least not a deficit; that is, to maintain their current reserves of gold they had to do this.
Would someone please explain to this layman why it is Now that no one seems to care that the US has a constant trade deficit? If it was a bad or a terrible thing back then, why it is not a bad thing now? And this goes for a nation like Greece too.

Everyone seeทs to think the US can keep hemorrhaging dollars with a foreign trade deficit forever with no down side.
[OTOH, everyone seems to think the US can NOT keep borrowing money forever, that there will certainly be a reckoning day someday.]

I really promise that I am open to your understanding of why this is so. I want to know.

So, nobody can explain this.
Maybe Trump is trying to address this problem, if it is a problem.
But yes, Trump is an idiot so he is doing it all wrong.

[blackjack21]

No way does this have anything to do with nationalism. It is simply a German marching club.

The Nazi party was nationalist. I didn't say that it wasn't. I said Jews get persecuted for reasons that often have nothing to do with nationalism. There were lots of pogroms in Russia and Ukraine for example. The United Kingdom and France could be characterized as nationalist in those times too, but weren't known for rounding up millions of people and killing them.

One of the main sources of anti-Semitism is anti-nationalism or anti-Israel sentiment: Antisemitism in Europe

[Beren]

When mutually threatened tariffs on $34 billion goods come into effect this Friday, China will get a head start on the United States, Reuters reports.

Implementation is set to start at midnight July 6 in both countries, which gives Beijing a 12-hour advantage on Washington. President Donald Trump has threatened to increase the scope to $450 billion if China indeed retaliates against his 25% tariff.

The list of Chinese products targeted with U.S. tariffs include vaping devices, rare earth metals and LED light bulbs. A Reuters analysis found just 1% of the 1,102 categories of products imported from China to the U.S. are consumer goods. The rest are capital or intermediary products, taxed with the the intention of making American companies’ supply chains less reliant on Chinese goods.

China’s tariff targets include pork, wheat, rice and dairy products. The South China Morning Post said China is likely to cancel orders for 1.1 million tons of soybeans from the U.S. this year. China accounts for about half of America’s soybean exports, worth about $14 billion annually, CNBC says.

Chinese newspapers described the move as a counterstrike in an escalating trade war. “China has already made preparations. As long as the United States issues a so-called tariff list, China will take necessary measures to firmly protect its legitimate interests,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said at a daily news briefing.

The US Chamber of Commerce has spoken out against the tariffs, saying the escalating global trade war will hurt American consumers in the long run. It’s unclear when the effects will directly hit American consumers, but there will likely be some delay as inventory is sold off and the trickle-down effects of tariffs on intermediary goods take hold.

The European Union and China will meet for an economic summit in Beijing on July 16 and 17. China is pushing for joint action against the U.S. and WTO, though the EU has been reluctant to speak out so directly.

There's a 12-hour lag between Beijing and Washington D.C., and Brussels is just right in the middle. It's 6:00 a.m. Friday in Beijing and it will be Friday in six hours in Washington.

I wonder how much the Chinese countermeasures will hurt American farmers, and the EU-China summit could be interesting too.

[blackjack21]

In terms of competing stock markets, the US is winning. The Chinese market is down 20%+ now, while the US fell about 10% and bounced back a bit.

I think this is a far more dangerous game for China. Apparently, the banks aren't willing to take stocks as collateral for loans now. Since China has built a bunch of phony cities to keep its GDP numbers up and loans against these properties have a high risk of default, as they are mostly vacant, a falling stock market could trigger a liquidity crisis in China.

China's big effort is to curb food purchases from the US--making their own citizens pay more for food while their economy suffers. This isn't the smartest political approach for sure.

I think Trump will be the last man standing on this one too.

China stocks sell off, enter a bear market

[jimjam]

Razat Gaurav, the chief executive of LLamasoft, which advises companies on organizing their supply chains, said that many of his customers have been making alternate plans to restructure their operations, with some choosing to set up in countries like Vietnam or Mexico. Others are postponing large investments, like new factories, and are trying to avoid signing long-term contracts with suppliers — all changes that will eventually take a toll on the economy.

“As the American side has gradually closed in on China, it has aroused the ire of Chinese society, and made Chinese people more clearheaded, more united,” said an editorial on the website of Global Times, a nationalist tabloid owned by the Communist Party. “Washington has obviously underestimated the giant force that the world’s opposition and China’s retaliation can produce.”

Trade Wars have lasting and unpredictable consequences, one of which is recession-all are of you ready for the Trump recession? Mr.Trump does not understand international supply chains.He is still behaving as though he produces The Apprentice and runs Trump Inc,He has not assembled a credible economic team.He is so ignorant of economics that he has gone bankrupt several times.He is absolutely is rolling the economic dice with trade wars

What is it that Republicans love about recessions. They seem to be really good at bringing them on like clockwork. And then blame the Democrats for not ending soon enough.