Replies

The free trade theories are correct in the LONG RUN, but your are ignoring the large short-term costs which make it quite probable that we will get it to the long run.

Global Free Trade theories ignore one very, very important aspect of human nature: individual and societies, for better or worse, change slowly. Conservatives have correctly criticized "liberal" policies over the years for just this reason, and we should not ignore this fundamental aspect of life just because we want cheap goods.

Let me give you a real life example of Globalization as it currently exists. A software programmer I know at Intel-Hillsboro, Oregon makes about $70k/year and is told that he will be laid off because much of the software development is being "outsourced" to Hyderbad, India. Not wanting to be total assholes, Intel does offer him a position in Hyderabad at a lower salary (in USD) which will allow him to live at a high standard of living in India. This scenario is not rare but will be unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of Americans.

Some people have supported free trade/globalization because they wanted to cripple the welfare/regulatory state. They might achieve this but will probably create conditions that will require a true global governing body. Check out the Hover Institute web site to find articles regarding this matter.

I'm not arguing for "protectionism" but for a more rational international trade policy that creates a measure of stability as well as wealth.

Capitalism is the most revolutionary force in the world and it is its nature to force change, irresistible change. And there is no such thing as "globalization" that is just a commie buzzword. There is a World Economy and has been for almost 600 yrs and there is no going back to the little fiefdomes which preceded it.

This cannot be avoided and if you believe that we are living in times where change is slow I don't know what world it is you are seeing but it is NOT the world I look upon. I am watching the world change at a tremendous pace one that is uncomfortably fast. But trying to block it would as effective as putting a boulder in a flood.

You have not thought through the implications within your friend's situation. Let us say that Intel did not move its operations to India then eventually the price differential would become so great than some other company would do it to compete with Intel. Should that continue then Intel's profits would start to fall and layoffs would result.

Price differentials in the market cannot be ignored anymore than voltage potentials can in a circuit.

One of the greatest economic thinkers, Joseph Schumpeter, described the capitalistic process as one which has a heart of "Creative destruction." Progress only comes at the cost of destroying the old. But the problem is that any impediment to that process only increases the human suffering.

Then there is the question of what governmental body is capable of making correct decisions regarding these matters and how much power you want to turn over to it.

My answer would be "none" and "none."

in the log run - it leads to a two class system - the very wealthy, those with access to capital or "protected" jobs (lawyers, CEO and the executive suite, etc) - and workers, for whom the only thing they have to trade to obtain money is their labor - only to find the worth of their labor is diminshed. government workers, or those who obtain compenstation through government programs (health care workers, education, etc), comprise the middle class.

you can forget about sustaining a republican party in that environment - once the private sector middle class is withered away, the Dems will have a permanent majority in the US.