[Potemkin]

They'd go corporate statist rather than socialist, we can clearly see that now. However, even if they went socialist, it would be something like the Communards wanted, which is what TIG hopes for. In my opinion it's economic liberalism versus economic nationalism, while the others remain marginalised.

Stalin's policy of "socialism in one country" was also a form of economic nationalism, Beren. It will therefore begin to look increasingly attractive to the American masses as things develop. Of course, it probably won't be called "socialism" or "national bolshevism", just as corporate statism probably won't be called "fascism". But that's what it will be.

[Beren]

Stalin's policy of "socialism in one country" was also a form of economic nationalism, Beren. It will therefore begin to look increasingly attractive to the American masses as things develop. Of course, it probably won't be called "socialism" or "national bolshevism", just as corporate statism probably won't be called "fascism". But that's what it will be.

Stalin's USSR was a centrally planned state-owned economy, which we won't see in the US in the foreseeable future, while economic nationalism is still a capitalist idea and Trump himself is a capitalist resembling Mussolini (or Berlusconi) rather than Stalin. But keep on wishful thinking and dreaming comrade.

Also, we have a global capitalist and financial system now and globalisation won't stop, so this current reactionary experiment is just a setback, which is a natural thing rather than not and should be expected to happen from time to time.

What's the idea by the way? That mankind keeps living in nations while the economy becomes global? That's the basic contradiction here that should be resolved, and economic nationalism won't be able to do that.

[Potemkin]

Also, we have a global capitalist and financial system now and globalisation won't stop, so this current reactionary experiment is just a setback, which is a natural thing rather than not and should be expected to happen from time to time.

What's the idea by the way? That mankind keeps living in nations while the economy becomes global? That's the basic contradiction here that should be resolved, and economic nationalism won't be able to do that.

Agreed, which is why 'socialism in one country' must be only the first stage of the world proletarian revolution.

[Beren]

Agreed, which is why 'socialism in one country' must be only the first stage of the world proletarian revolution.

Did Stalin himself believe (in) that?

[Decky]

Of course he did, what exactly is it that you think socialism is about?

[One Degree]

You guys are hopeless. Seeing a nationalistic US as hope for international communism.
Multi national corporations will suffer the most. Walmart will go first and be replaced by many smaller competitors. We will see a revival of small business capitalism, not socialism.
Unfortunately, none of this will happen. The Republican party is the biggest deterrent. Despite all the hysteria, we will have 4 more years of nothing really changing except more taxes on the average person.

[B0ycey]

Some people are historically naive. You think a socialist model based on Stalin's Russia is better than capitalism? Starvation, brutal murder and propaganda is better than wealth? Look at NK. You want that, move there. Why be part of a society that you loath? Especially when this utopian socialist dream exists on the other side of the planet.

As for US being self sufficient, most nations can be. But it's a step back. The luxuries people take for granted will not be affordable for the average Joe and US poor will find that their commodities will become more expansive. Sure it will raise the middle finger towards the wealthy 1% but these are the money men that can create new jobs with their wealth. You think foreign inverters will create the high skilled jobs that the US worker wants to do or put their money into a country that has turned into a protectionist nation? Dream on. The US have made their money through globalisation and capitalism. The West are rich because of capitalism. If the US want to turn their back on this, fine. But someone else will take their place and the wealth that comes from it. And it is likely to be China.

[One Degree]

The average person in the US was much better off before a global economy. Why everyone insists on this being something that can not be changed is bizarre. The world has always had trade. Calling it a 'global economy' is a means of validating the existence of huge multi nationals. They are not essential to trade. We can continue trade without relying upon multi nationals. We can strive to be as self sufficient as possible and still trade for trinkets. The price of these trinkets is immaterial.

[quetzalcoatl]

@Potemkin @quetzalcoatl

Global capitalism already insures the working class will continue to suffer increasing losses. Your arguments appear to be we must allow the slow destruction of the working class rather than turning to Nationalism which, after short term hardship, could save them.
Avoiding change because it brings short term hardship is what has got us into this mess. I think my life will be just fine without super jets. What else do you have? What other things will we have to give up?

Basically, you're giving up cheap Wal-Mart prices. In the transition phase there will be an enormous push-inflation shock. Local businesses are great, I'm all for that- but they cannot compete on price point with WalMart. You have to be willing to do some massive redistributionism to help the working class survive this shock. Socialism, if you will.

I'm curious a bit as to what you would say to Boeing machinists who will inevitably lose their jobs. The Kentucky coal miners didn't react so well to HRC telling them they'd lose their jobs.

[B0ycey]

The average person in the US was much better off before a global economy. Why everyone insists on this being something that can not be changed is bizarre.

You were better off because you had no competition. Everyone else has to build up from the bottom after WWII. The US took the capitalist/globalist mantle in the 50s/60s and ran away with it. Were you better off in the 1920s or even the 19th century? The reason you feel angry now is you had it all and now the world is taking some of the pie. The US can afford to give generous aid and unemployment benefits to the poor. But they rather spend their money on missiles and space rockets. That is a government policy problem not a capitalist one. Plus for some unknown reason, wealthy men like Trump has convinced the US poor that Obamacare is bad for them! Just stupidity. In the UK, the NHS is king and untouchable. But if you want to bankrupt you rich, good luck financing the jobs you want to create. And forget selling to the rest of the world.

The world has always had trade. Calling it a 'global economy' is a means of validating the existence of huge multi nationals. They are not essential to trade. We can continue trade without relying upon multi nationals. We can strive to be as self sufficient as possible and still trade for trinkets. The price of these trinkets is immaterial.

Why would someone want to trade with the US if you put protectionist policies and unfair tariffs on their goods? Trade works both ways. Like I said, the US are the wealthiest nation today because of globalisation. If you want a lower standard of living, by all means champion protectionism.

[One Degree]

Long term versus short term. A global economy requires a reduction in the US standard of living. We have already seen it and it will continue unless we change it. How can you say globalism has made the US rich when more of us are poorer than ever? Are our economic choices supposed to be restricted to how the wealthiest benefit?
What is best for the US in the long term? We have abundant resources and a relatively low population density. We have nothing to gain in the long term from globalism. It means a future where we have less and less so the rest of the world can have more. I do not wish to be that much of a humanitarian, since I do not believe there is enough to go around except in a world where everyone is barely surviving except the very rich. A one world economy would be great in a world where the resources were plentiful enough for everyone, but we have too many people for that to be practical. It is idealistic nonsense.
Short term goals keep blinding us to reality.

[B0ycey]

Long term versus short term. A global economy requires a reduction in the US standard of living. We have already seen it and it will continue unless we change it. How can you say globalism has made the US rich when more of us are poorer than ever? :?:

You compare wealth on the rich you see on TV. You want to know what being poor is really like, look at Africa. If you can afford rent, food and luxuries you are already more wealthier than most of the planet. However the US have a massive debt. You need globalsation. So by all means, be for protectionism. Let these capitalist global companies move abroad and take their wealth from your shores. What do I care? The US foreign policies are bad for the world. So anything that takes away their influence from foriegn governments is good for the planet.

Nonetheless I won't go as far as to say that you will stave or become a third world nation if you lived on only the resources that the US can provide for themselves. However don't kid yourself in thinking there be new jobs and a better standard of living if the US turned into a protectionist society. What the US poor really need is for the US to spend more on welfare and less on wars, missles and space rockets. And if they did that, there be no talk of protectionism today to escape from the injustices they consider from foriegners stealing their jobs.

Are our economic choices supposed to be restricted to how the wealthiest benefit?

Again, government policies. Capitalism creates wealth and incentives to invest in jobs and ideas. You want a fairer society then be for higher taxes on the wealthy and better welfare policies for the poor. Not a notion that will bankrupt the US and devalue the dollar considerably. Remember China own a lot of US debt. They can sell it for next to nothing if the US declare a trade war on them and still be a global trade superpower.

What is best for the US in the long term? We have abundant resources and a relatively low population density. We have nothing to gain in the long term from globalism. It means a future where we have less and less so the rest of the world can have more. I do not wish to be that much of a humanitarian, since I do not believe there is enough to go around except in a world where everyone is barely surviving except the very rich. A one world economy would be great in a world where the resources were plentiful enough for everyone, but we have too many people for that to be practical. It is idealistic nonsense.
Short term goals keep blinding us to reality.

The US has the fundamentals like food, oil and building materials to do it alone. So yes you can live the simple life. But your wealth is from globalisation. Cheap goods come from globalsation too. So should your wish come true and the US becomes self sufficient, you will notice a reduction in living standards, what you can afford to buy (due to less competition) and the variety of things you can buy. But it doesn't matter how many times this is spelt out to you, it never sinks in. So perhaps you might find this out the hard way if Trump gets his wish.

[Bridgeburner]

Remember China own a lot of US debt. They can sell it for next to nothing if the US declare a trade war on them and still be a global trade superpower.

I hate this myth, they hardly own anything compared to how much has been borrowed against Americans/American social security. Americans own the majority of their Govts. debt

[B0ycey]

I hate this myth, they hardly own anything compared to how much has been borrowed against Americans/American social security. Americans own the majority of their Govts. debt

A myth would imply it's not true. They might not be the biggest holder of foreign dollar investment, but they do still own enough to give a seismic shift to the hedgefunders confidence in the currency should they do a mass sell off. And while they want to peg the Yuan to the Dollar there is no reason for them to sell this asset off today. But trust me, China will do a mass sell off if the US brings forward protectionism policies that harm their economy. After all, the dollar IOUs aren't worth much if they are used only within an internal market rather than an international one.

[AFAIK]

Britain rose to power by industrialising and then outsourced its industry to countries with cheaper labour and made bank from finance and insurance and the USA is following a similar path. Of course the people making money on the factory floor and the trading floor rarely overlap and plenty of working class whites have been left behind in rust belts and decaying urban centers.

Fortunately, the election of a billionaire TV personality who inherited a real estate empire and appoints business leaders to key posts will reverse this trend and his plans to dismantle environmental protections and affordable healthcare will elevate America to the level of 3rd world shit hole.

[quetzalcoatl]

A myth would imply it's not true. They might not be the biggest holder of foreign dollar investment, but they do still own enough to give a seismic shift to the hedgefunders confidence in the currency should they do a mass sell off. And while they want to peg the Yuan to the Dollar there is no reason for them to sell this asset off today. But trust me, China will do a mass sell off if the US brings forward protectionism policies that harm their economy. After all, the dollar IOUs aren't worth much if they are used only within an internal market rather than an international one.

Yes, this is a myth. This myth is called many things: bond vigilantes, confidence fairies, etc. But it is a false narrative designed to impose austerity on a captive internal population.

The Chinese can do NOTHING in regard to their treasury holdings that wouldn't do far more harm (by orders of magnitude) to them than to the US. They are playing a losing hand and they know it. If they sold all their treasury holdings overnight, it would collapse the value of an asset which forms a significant portion of their GDP. The US would face exchange rates more favorable for its own exports.

So yeah, this ain't gonna happen.

[AFAIK]

Aircraft carriers and submarines are expensive. If China ends up confronting the US why wouldn't they calculate that certain economic maneuvers offer better value for money?

[B0ycey]

Yes, this is a myth. This myth is called many things: bond vigilantes, confidence fairies, etc. But it is a false narrative designed to impose austerity on a captive internal population.

The Chinese can do NOTHING in regard to their treasury holdings that wouldn't do far more harm (by orders of magnitude) to them than to the US. They are playing a losing hand and they know it. If they sold all their treasury holdings overnight, it would collapse the value of an asset which forms a significant portion of their GDP. The US would face exchange rates more favorable for its own exports.

So yeah, this ain't gonna happen.

All this is hypothetical. And naturally China will lose a lot of wealth by selling their Dollar reserve is a mass sell off. And yes, US exporters would gain an advantage with a favourable exchange rate when compared to other markets. But are you smoking something? China can afford to sell off the Dollar. Their debt levels are nothing compared to the US and their GDP certainly isn't tied to the Dollar either. They only have this Dollar reserve to peg the Yuan to the currency, nothing more, nothing less.

Nonetheless, quetzalcoatl, have you forgotten the scenario we are talking about here? It's a US protectionism scenario. Exchange rates are immaterial if you aren't trading with the rest of the world. Anything you need from the rest of the world that you can't mine will cost a lot more too. And naturally everything will cost more with less competition or choice for the US poor.

So does China hold a strong or weak hand? Well it depends on the rules you are playing with. Today, the US being a globalisation nation with a strong currency, to sell off the Dollar would be insane. In a world where the Dollar is used primarily in an internal market and the US have imposed protectionism policies that are harming your economy, sell off the Dollar makes perfect sense. So no. It isn't a myth. It's just not likely to happen in today's economic environment.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Also, we have a global capitalist and financial system now and globalisation won't stop, so this current reactionary experiment is just a setback, which is a natural thing rather than not and should be expected to happen from time to time.

What's the idea by the way? That mankind keeps living in nations while the economy becomes global? That's the basic contradiction here that should be resolved, and economic nationalism won't be able to do that.

The contradiction only exists if you take a purist view on globalisation. In reality it's not an all or nothing proposition where we have to choose between autarky on the one hand and a globalised one-market world on the other hand. Similarly, most countries have chosen a free market model without taking a purist approach either - i.e. no market within countries is completely free.

The solution is actually relatively straightforward. All that needs to happen is a defeat of brainless progressives who have in their own minds attached a moral cause to globalisation, without which they are now convinced peace is not possible. Without progressive extremism we can have a rational discussion about the extent of globalisation we wish to have for our countries, just as we debate how free or regulated we want our markets to be.

[fokker]

Aircraft carriers and submarines are expensive. If China ends up confronting the US why wouldn't they calculate that certain economic maneuvers offer better value for money?

China doesn't need to confront US militarily, it can do it economically more effectively. I doubt it will build a navy the same size like US as it can be costly to maintain. Chinese are not militarists like Russians. They did deep analyses why communism failed in Russia. Their handling of economy shows they know what they are doing.