I was tear-gassed protesting free trade. Now that Trump’s tariffs may signal the beginning of the end of globalization, do I get to say, “I told you so?"
The argument seems to be “I think free trade is bad. It led to a shitload of prosperity for everyone involved, but now that people are projecting their personal grievances onto free trade and undermining it by electing an isolationist nationalist, things are going to get worse. Told ya so.” Feels like hella cope to me lol.
Yeah, I just read it. There’s no attempt to actually defend the connection between globalisation and Trump, let alone claim they saw it coming. To the contrary:
It’s looking like we were right – only in ways we didn’t predict.
That’s a funny definition of “right”. Usually knowledge is regarded as having to be both true and well founded, and definitely directly about the thing in question. As per usual with activists, though, sides are the only thing that matter, not factual accuracy.
The argument against free trade was that it would suck decent jobs out of high cost/high regulation countries, and replace them with near-slavery jobs in low cost/low regulation countries.
Generally, this has occurred: developed countries have lost jobs in manufacturing. It seems possible that developing countries did a little better than we expected, but I’m not too familiar with that.
It led to a shitload of prosperity for everyone involved
For the already rich, yes. For the rest of us, no. Inequality in the developed world increased significantly in the past few decades. I don’t think that can be entirely attributed to free trade agreements, but they contributed.
It seems possible that developing countries did a little better than we expected, but I’m not too familiar with that.
You know how China’s rich enough to scare other world powers now? Yeah, that’s because of big-earning and well-paying (relative to traditional subsistence farming) offshore jobs.
Without the option to export things to rich countries in exchange for things we can make but they can’t (yet), third-world countries are stuck in a cycle of poverty. No money to pay for education or new enterprises, which leads to another generation of dysfunction, which saps away the money for education and enterprises.
I suppose India, Indonesia and Pakistan might be big enough to follow the Stalin path of state-importing contractors and prefab factories from the developed world instead, but I doubt anyone else is - the amount of money that takes is just crazy, and by definition they’re starting with not a lot per capita.
For the already rich, yes. For the rest of us, no.
We’d still be back in the days where buying a new outfit was a very major investment, if it had to be spun and woven here instead of in Bangladesh. If you buy cheap imports, you do benefit.
You could argue that globalisation has caused wages to stagnate at the same time, but there’s other possible culprits even for that - poor competition, a trend away from progressive taxation, and just the fact that the rich usually get richer in peacetime.
Also, I’d like to say, as a Western poor person I’ve got nothing on the starving Africans.
During the FTAA talks (and before), we were pushing for fair trade - saying that free trade between countries with similar labour and environmental regulations is fine.
We said that for all the reasons you mentioned: real investment can build a middle class and improve people’s lives.
The thing we objected to with the trade agreements is that they would enrich oligarchs and screw workers.
Those jobs that got moved overseas, generally were replaced with much better jobs. Value added complex manufacturing, tech, service, research, healthcare. No one wants to mine coal or manufacture widgets. Of course some people slipped through the cracks and we have wealth inequality, so we should pay taxes (especially the rich) to fund a social safety net.
Globalism is based. Free trade is based.
Yeah, I have a feeling national security and a possible fascist takeover of the US wasn’t their main bone to pick.
The argument seems to be “I think free trade is bad. It led to a shitload of prosperity for everyone involved, but now that people are projecting their personal grievances onto free trade and undermining it by electing an isolationist nationalist, things are going to get worse. Told ya so.” Feels like hella cope to me lol.
Yeah, I just read it. There’s no attempt to actually defend the connection between globalisation and Trump, let alone claim they saw it coming. To the contrary:
That’s a funny definition of “right”. Usually knowledge is regarded as having to be both true and well founded, and definitely directly about the thing in question. As per usual with activists, though, sides are the only thing that matter, not factual accuracy.
The argument against free trade was that it would suck decent jobs out of high cost/high regulation countries, and replace them with near-slavery jobs in low cost/low regulation countries.
Generally, this has occurred: developed countries have lost jobs in manufacturing. It seems possible that developing countries did a little better than we expected, but I’m not too familiar with that.
For the already rich, yes. For the rest of us, no. Inequality in the developed world increased significantly in the past few decades. I don’t think that can be entirely attributed to free trade agreements, but they contributed.
You know how China’s rich enough to scare other world powers now? Yeah, that’s because of big-earning and well-paying (relative to traditional subsistence farming) offshore jobs.
Without the option to export things to rich countries in exchange for things we can make but they can’t (yet), third-world countries are stuck in a cycle of poverty. No money to pay for education or new enterprises, which leads to another generation of dysfunction, which saps away the money for education and enterprises.
I suppose India, Indonesia and Pakistan might be big enough to follow the Stalin path of state-importing contractors and prefab factories from the developed world instead, but I doubt anyone else is - the amount of money that takes is just crazy, and by definition they’re starting with not a lot per capita.
We’d still be back in the days where buying a new outfit was a very major investment, if it had to be spun and woven here instead of in Bangladesh. If you buy cheap imports, you do benefit.
You could argue that globalisation has caused wages to stagnate at the same time, but there’s other possible culprits even for that - poor competition, a trend away from progressive taxation, and just the fact that the rich usually get richer in peacetime.
Also, I’d like to say, as a Western poor person I’ve got nothing on the starving Africans.
During the FTAA talks (and before), we were pushing for fair trade - saying that free trade between countries with similar labour and environmental regulations is fine.
We said that for all the reasons you mentioned: real investment can build a middle class and improve people’s lives.
The thing we objected to with the trade agreements is that they would enrich oligarchs and screw workers.
I just don’t see how that is or was true, though, and it has nothing to do with the actual problem at hand. At least not directly.
Those jobs that got moved overseas, generally were replaced with much better jobs. Value added complex manufacturing, tech, service, research, healthcare. No one wants to mine coal or manufacture widgets. Of course some people slipped through the cracks and we have wealth inequality, so we should pay taxes (especially the rich) to fund a social safety net.