101 ms·

It’s genuinely sad to see the world splintering into waves of nationalistic protectionism. Not long ago, we had something promising, a slow but steady crawl to

• wodenokoto 2y ago
  > "Not long ago, we had something promising, a slow but steady crawl toward a united global community." How long ago was not long ago in your eyes? I'd say, the promise of international trade and globalization uniting the world fell apart some time in the 2000 or 2010s with China showing they would not open up to ideas of human rights and personal freedom. The sales pitch for investing in China (from a political point of view) was that we could trade the communism and fascism out of them. Then in Russia showed that we couldn't trade our way to peace. The idea was that cheap gas from Russia would make Europe and Russia dependent on either side of the deal, and we wouldn't disturb world peace and break the trade. That didn't go well. And now America wants to but limit trade with their biggest trade partners and closest allies, in the hopes that it'll bring them manufacturing prowess. My economics professor in 2005, said the world was more globalized in the wake of WWI. I don't know if that was true, but at least they didn't have passports back then.
• Pet_Ant 2y ago
  The problem was that the people that benefitted most from free trade never do the work to ensure that a fair share of the profits went to the working class who were now being displaced. If you can no longer get lifelong middleclass job with a high school diploma, but you need a degree, then the degree should be paid for by the state... or you see what you see, a race to the bottom and then a backlash.
  • ty6853 2y ago
    There are plenty of worker owned businesses. If this leads to more worker prosperity then the free market should push workers into them and to form them. They are free to do so, so what gives?
    • rlnvlc 2y ago
      "It's called consolidation. Strengthen governments and corporations, weaken individuals. With taxes this can be done imperceptibly over time."
      • ty6853 2y ago
        Sure but if worker own businesses generate more profit for workers then the workers can use that wealth to buy, I mean lobby and later employ, officials just like other businesses no? I don't see why they cant do all the same corrupt regulatory capture stuff.
  • MichaelZuo 2y ago
    This seems circular, since there are no credible authorities to decide what is “a fair share” or not, other than the political process in the first place. (And then only in the ideal perfectly spherical cow world where single issue voters don’t exist…)
    • Pet_Ant 2y ago
      I think fair can be refined to a middle class lifestyle where after working for 30 years you can have your house paid odd and enjoy the final third of your life in retirement having healthcare coverage the whole time. While nailing down all the particulars can be daunting I think the basic sketch as above is what people mean most of the time pretty uncontroversially.
      • MichaelZuo 2y ago
        Did you fully read my comment? This doesn’t make sense as a response… you can’t gain that kind of credibility just by stating opinions. And even if millions do so, it’s still just talk, unless consistently reflected at the ballot box.
• Hikikomori 2y ago
  Globalism or imperialism 2.0 perpetrated by America? I'd like to see that kind of utopia, but unclear how we can overcome greed, corruption and bad actors.
• whatever1 2y ago
  Turns out capital without borders ruins prices for scarce things (like housing) everywhere.
  • mentalgear 2y ago
    Housing is a fundamental human right. Corporations should not be allowed to buy or hold large amounts of residential property or zoned housing land. They create artificial scarcity by holding it back, driving up prices purely for profit. A less direct but still effective approach is to restrict residential property purchases to citizens. This helps prevent international hedge funds and (sovereign) wealth-funds from monopolizing the housing market. Some of the most affordable housing markets in the world, such as Austria, implement these policies—alongside strong state-led housing initiatives.
    • whatever1 2y ago
      Rich people have smart folks whose job is to think ways to avoid regulation. In your example they would probably just have puppet citizens who buy land on their behalf. Sure the cost would be a bit higher because the puppets would demand some commission, but hey it’s the cost of running business. It’s close to impossible to regulate concentrated money. See the drug cartels or Musk as two examples. The cartels operate their own army in South America completely ignoring government regulation. Musk bought an entire gov for himself.
      • mentalgear 2y ago
        While I can understand your cynicism, and I know the reality of loopholes, it would make it much harder. Also, consider the more "puppets" needed, they less stable the system becomes, and the more likely a "puppet" exposes the system (as whistleblowers in the mafia). In any case, the thinking can't be "it's too hard, we can't do anything anyhow" because then society is really f-ed and the rich get what they want: hopelessness and conformity. Again, there are examples of northern & Scandinavian countries that did this with great results. It's just a matter of pushing through.
    • 2y ago
• diego_moita 2y ago
  Depends on the perspective. A "Rules-based world order" has been the rationale of the West for decades: WTO, U.N., free trade, democracy, countries' sovereignty, etc. But this "global community" was lipstick on a pig. From a 3rd World perspective that was just hypocrisy. The "rules" were always chosen by the rich countries: free trade but keep farm protectionism against 3rd world's cheap produce, sovereignty but not for Palestinians, democracy but not if Chile, Iran or most of Africa or Latin America choose to have socialist leaders (Allende, Mossadegh, etc), ... And now that even the rules are not advantageous to the rich anymore (e.g.:China's and Mexico's manufacturing, India's and South America's farming) the rich countries are scrapping the rules.
• eCa 2y ago
  European here. To be frank, it’s more about the rest of the ”west” updating our list of friendly countries. It is the US that has chosen to take an ever more adversarial position lately, pretty much worsening daily. The trust among the rest of the west feels like it instead is strengthening. I interpret both ”buy European” and ”buy Canadian” as more of ”don’t buy from USA” with a thin layer of politeness.
  • 1over137 2y ago
    There is no such veneer of politeness in Canada. The sentiment is more 'boycott USA'.
    • eCa 2y ago
      Understood. From my reading of /r/canada I’ve got the impression that you are further along that path. I’ve been quite impressed with the political response to the whole 51st/governor madness as well.
      • 1over137 2y ago
        Canada is the canary in the coal mine. Watch it closely if you want to see what's coming for Europe.
        • mlrtime 2y ago
          Europe is increasing it's defense spending as it should. The whole point here is about countries paying they're fare share for defense. You want to have all the benefits of socialism without defense spending, which is easy when you know someone else will come to bail you out. I'd be pissed as well tbh, but I think it's good the EU controls their own destiny.
        • mlrtime 2y ago
          Yet none of the Canadians stop using reddit, a US company. Easy to boycott things you don't care about.
• ty6853 2y ago
  It's crushing Hong Kong was handed over, as they had about the free-est import/export burdens and regulations in the world. Everyone everywhere wants to kill the golden goose and it's mind boggling that the only people that seem to understand this right now is a few emirates and Singaporean quasi-dictators. Hoppe might have been right about democracy.
• 9rx 2y ago
  > Countries could specialize and trade freely: I’d buy your chips, you’d buy my steel, and we’d both come out ahead. It worked. It worked until emotions entered the picture. "I don't like making chips. I prefer producing steel. Why do you get to have all the fun?" they've said for decades and with increasing furor. If you could move freely about the world without any restrictions so that those who enjoy steelmaking could easily move to where the steel is made maybe it would have had a better chance, but even then people generally prioritize location (to be close to family, friends, certain amenities, etc.) above all else so it is likely they would still seek a varied local economy despite the benefits of a global economy.
  • robertlagrant 2y ago
    > "I don't like making chips. I prefer producing steel. Why do you get to have all the fun?" they've said for decades and with increasing furor. Who says this? TSMC?
    • 9rx 2y ago
      Those who don't like their jobs. Hence why Trump's "We'll bring back the jobs you like doing" messaging was so appealing to a lot of people, even if a lie.
• zwnow 2y ago
  Nah protectionism is really important. Globalization introduces dependencies and therefor allows countries to easily exploit others. Globalization is not as good as you describe it.
  • ruszki 2y ago
    Does dependency make wars less probable? Genuine question. Logically it should, but I don’t know the numbers.
    • zwnow 2y ago
      I'm not sure. On one side, having trade relationships would maybe also contribute to peace between the countries who take part in these agreements. On the other side you have countries that might try and conquer instead of building relationships. There are so many edge cases to this question it's hard to think of a answer that feels right. I am also no expert on the matter. One thing to note though, is that wars are not always grenades and guns, sometimes having more money is enough to get unfair advantages on other countries. It's a big topic.
• dr_kretyn 2y ago
  Maybe. But, isn't the EU a large collection of countries? Meaning that it isn't about updating the free trade of the West; it's about rejecting the US which turned into a not-a-friend seemingly overnight. As a Canadian and a European, I'm going outside my way to not buy from the US. I used to boycott Nestle but if Canadian Superstore has only Nescafe or something from the US, I'm going for Nestle.
  • mlrtime 2y ago
    Except that friend has been paying to defend off bullies it's entire life with little reciprocity. And when they do, all those friends give them a hard time. The US can't win here, they either meddle too much or "not-a-friend". Meanwhile the US has maxed out it's credit cards and risks paying for it's own bills. Pick one.
• Havoc 2y ago
  > It’s genuinely sad to see the world splintering into waves of nationalistic protectionism. And baffling that the country leading the charge on the splintering is the one with most to gain/lose. Feels like selfharm on scale of brexit