ping
"Building An American Future" bump.
Good article, but I think the author makes the decline of most European empires more complicated than they really were. I believe simple geography -- and its relationship to international trade and military affairs -- played a far more important role in this decline than most people realize. The Romans were the dominant civilization for hundreds of years because their ability to extend their influence and project force throughout the Mediterranean Sea was unparalleled. They were less successful in projecting force to the east over land, since technology (i.e., maritime vessels and the associated military/trade applications of such) was far less important in land-based movement than in water-based movement.
Spain, France, the Netherlands, and Great Britain became the dominant colonial forces that grew out of the remnants of the Roman Empire because their exposure to the Atlantic Ocean made them better-suited for expansion over long distances across wide bodies of water. And Great Britain eventually dominated the North American colonial scene because as an island nation in the harsh waters of the northern Atlantic Ocean and North Sea their superiority on the high seas -- in terms of raw seamanship and maritime skills -- was unparalleled.
Globalist, one-world, multi-national corporate bump for future reference.
Its time IMO for what Richard Feynman would call...'getting back to first principles'.
And so we consider Adam Smith, a Professor of MORAL PHILOSOPHY when he wrote his noteworthy Wealth of Nations . Smiths critique of the then common practice of Mercantilism was done within a moral, philosophical, and a logical framework. Which tells me that any economic policy or practice which is ultimately derived from Wealth of Nations , including Ricardo's Comparative Advantage theory, and its applicability to todays Global Marketplace, must also be judged, ultimately, within a framework of practicality, logic, and morality.
Its high time also, IMO, for Economics to acknowledge, that if it claims to have any pretensions of being a 'science', its theorems and models must be continually examined, critiqued, and then modified if necessary, to insure that mathematical models fit in with new, emerging empirical (experimental in the case of science) data.
I don't sense a healthy skepticism in economists (particularly those dealing with Macro or Global economics issues) that is present in contemporary scientists. Perhaps economists should stop and read some History of Science, particularly the history of the New Physics in the early 20th century, to gain an appreciation for how established 'classical theory' gets modified or replaced when new data comes in which cant be explained.
There seems to be a certain aloofness or perhaps smugness in some contemporary economists, which may mask either an inherent underlying uncertainty (in denial), or, an 'answer in search of a question' mindset.
A perfect example is Paul Krugman , a principle architect of the contemporary 'Davos mindset', and a man who literally wrote the book (several key college textbooks on economic theory) on International or Global / Macroeconomics theory. Read one of his essays which I have linked to here. (note also with amusement his stated admiration for then President Clinton).
Paul Krugman Essay on Ricardo's Theory
I intend to study this article very carefully, and read Ricardo and Smith over time (dont have time now for exhaustive study), with the hope of understanding the underlying logical assumptions or premises to their work. I also intend to read essays and discussion on their works. I note here, for example, one key passage from Krugmans essay on Ricardos theory...
"The basic Ricardian model envisages a single factor, labor, which can move freely between industries. When one tries to talk about trade with laymen, however, one at least sometimes realizes that they do not think about things that way at all. They think about steelworkers, textile workers, and so on; there is no such thing as a national labor market. It does not occur to them that the wages earned in one industry are largely determined by the wages similar workers are earning in other industries. This has several consequences. First, unless it is carefully explained, the standard demonstration of the gains from trade in a Ricardian model -- workers can earn more by moving into the industries in which you have a comparative advantage -- simply fails to register with lay intellectuals."
I question this somewhat elitist principle of considering labor merely as a Commodity. Its better, IMO, to consider labor as a Resource...most contemporary management theory would agree with me.
After all, to become productive at what you do requires a certain underlying talent or aptitude, coupled with interest, coupled with years of learning how to do what you do with knowledge, best practices, and efficiency.
Applying a cookie cutter mindset to labor leads to a downward migration of levels of aptitude, worker motivation , and ultimately, loss of productivity....factors which Krugman deosnt consider in his simplified model. Krugman and his contemporaries have, IMO, no idea what makes up a trained, motivated, skilled, and ultimately...productive worker...they seem to know only what makes up a trained and skilled ZEN like Economist.
A commodity labor practice, wherein labor migrates to the nations with the lowest infrastructure levels, which also happen to be those with the lowest production costs (particularly if they are also totalitarian slave states, another factor Krugman and co ignore), leads IMO, to instability in societies. This problem will then call out for a Big Government type solution...one in which the Feds provide for basic subsistence needs, and constant job training and retraining for all these displaced workers.
Another result of this labor migration policy, (which is what optimistic macro economists would call Vertical Specialization) is Societal Stratification...IMO the prototypical 'Unintended Consequence' of a Capitalistic system which is intended to provide the most benefits for the greatest number of people, in accord with the goals of Smith.
Krugman epitomizes, IMO, the elitist Third Way Progressive .
Impressive analysis. He is really pulling it together.
RE: "Huntington, drawing on wisdom solidly grounded in the study of history and human nature, is disdainful of this group for presuming that their naive liberal outlook will supercede traditional cultural values and the normal imperatives of national needs in a competitive world."
Words to live by.
What happens when you allow naive, utopian intellectuals to hold the levers of power, simultaneously, in both the public and private sectors? We are on the verge of finding out, and that picture ain't very pretty. Huntington knows this, since he is not an historical illiterate, unlike said utopians.
You know, there was a better time in the business world, previous to the ranks of management being flooded by overeducated painty waist globalony spewing theoreticians. As much as folks may critique them, the old so called "Robber Barrons" were, in contrast, real men. They were brash, bold and grounded in reality. They were colorful characters, with the spirit of the American frontier holding strong sway. And of course, today, no such real man would survive one week as even a first level manager in most of today's corporations. He'd be fired for being too non PC. I miss that archetype and meanwhile am nauseated by the Davos Culture.
Effective trade policy is not about being "free" or "fair." It is about creating advantages for those who invest and produce in America, against those who work anywhere else. This is the only way to provide maximum opportunities for Americans to prosper and to assure that "the state of the nation is strong."
... Hmmmm just wondering who decides what, which and how these 'advantages' will be chosen ... and then to whom/how should these objectives then be offered and to (which) investors? And who decides which current domestic producers get nationalistic protection?
Oh! And nationalism in general is such a great thing! The Dutch get mentioned - perfect! I think the low lands have been Europe's battle field for centuries...and mostly between nation states!
Free trade is more antidote to war than economic nationalism.
It is the "free trade" herein defended by some by hurling invective and insults at "protectionists," by demanding that we "protectionists" take a course in Econ 101.
Well, I went back and re-read the entire chapter on "comparative advantage" and at the end Professor Paul Samuelson says "all Ricardian bets are off" if wage differentials are too great and if one country's currency ends up at the wrong level. Comparative advantage retains its "vital social relevance" only when exchange rates, prices, and wages are appropriate.
The Davos World's "rules-based free trade" is not about economics, it's about redistribution of wealth. IMO it is a Marxist revolution from the top down and our corporations are the useful idiots who will be stripped of all their investments in Red China and elsewhere and placed on a slow boat back to America. It's what commies and com-symps do.
One of the most impressive things I have seen in my life was the TV footage showing VERY long line of Koreans: after request of their government (at the time of "Asian crisis" a few years ago) they were donating their personal assets to help national treasury. I will never forget the image of women taking off their wedding bands and dropping them into the container. Koreans are truly a great nation!
I heard from some Koreans that the most respected people in Korea are scholars, after them the next group are aristocracy/military, then craftsmen and peasants. The least respected are the merchants.
*
btt