The New World Order, 2017

Investors Business Daily ^ | 1/01/2017 | ROBERT J. SAMUELSON

[expat_panama]

One insistent question that will shape 2017 is whether we're witnessing the gradual decay of the post-World War II international order, dominated by the economic and military power of the United States.

After the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991, it became fashionable to talk of the United States as the only true superpower. Pax Americana...

...It wasn't. Obviously, this reassuring vision no longer describes the real world, if it ever did. On all fronts, the actual future confounds the imagined future.

Economies around the world have slowed. In virtually every major country — the United States, China, Germany — growth has declined from what it once was, creating a global slowdown. Not surprisingly, the supposed connection between greater prosperity and democratic politics failed to materialize.

Democratic disillusion has paralleled economic disappointment. Globalization and trade have fallen into disrepute...

...notion of a sole surviving superpower has also fared poorly...

..."Since the end of World War II, American leadership has been essential to maintain world peace. Whether we liked it or not, we were the world's policeman. There was no other cop on the beat. Now that leadership is gone. So, increasingly, will be peace."

Trump has his own ideas about weakening the international order. His chosen field is trade. He threatens to slap stiff tariffs on U.S. imports... ...the 1930s; the experiment did not end well.

There is a larger issue here. In his latest book, "World Order," Henry Kissinger argues that the world is at its greatest peril when the international order is moving from one system to another. "Restraints disappear, and the field is open to the most expansive claims and the most implacable actors," he writes. "Chaos follows until a new system of order is established." It's a sobering warning.

[ClearCase_guy]

The international order of Globalism must be weakened and destroyed. I don’t mind a period of chaos. If we support national sovereignty, we will end up in a better place.

The old “Let’s not rock the boat; let’s keep things as they are” is not even an option at this point. So embrace the change.

[Hugh the Scot]

"the 1930s; the experiment did not end well"

Not at all true. It's hilarious how the globalist cabal that's been running things into the ground for decades can choose something completely unrelated and scream "THAT'S THE CAUSE!!!", thinking we're too stupid to see through it...

[Jim Noble]

United States, China, Germany

Well, I don't know about China, but the US and Germany are both seriously ill with advanced degeneracy, principally low rates of family formation and hence lack of interest/concern with posterity. Economic growth CANNOT occur under those circumstances, the only thing that can grow if you don't plan on grandchildren is debt.

the supposed connection between greater prosperity and democratic politics failed to materialize

Why would ANYONE think "democracy" would be associated with greater prosperity? The only thing democracy causes, economically, is ruin, which is why the Founders erected so many barriers against it.

[ClearCase_guy]

Yeah, I was going to call that out as well. I’m glad you did. It’s been “axiomatic” for many decades that The Great Depression was caused by Smoot-Hawley tariffs. It’s just not so.

[Robert DeLong]

The last time mass protectionism was tried as economic stimulus was the 1930s; the experiment did not end well.

That statement is patently false. Reagan himself exercised protectionism when he slapped tariffs on Japan, an economic powerhouse at the time, and saved Harley Davidson motorcycles.

The truth is an economic war would be won by U.S. in the end. The other countries need trade with us just as much as we need trade with them.

Robert J. Samuelson is a "conservative" along the vein of George Will. That is the only kind of "conservative" that the Washington Post hires.

Robert Jacob Samuelson is a journalist for The Washington Post, where he has written about business and economic issues since 1977, and is syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group. He was a columnist for Newsweek magazine from 1984 to 2011. Wikipedia

[bert]

The globalism is of two sorts. Those that desire an overarching global government and those that engage in trade many of which have presence in many disparate locations.

The former may be curbed but the later will not. The presence of companies with multi continental reach will not be much changed. The interconnectivity is well established and the competition well defined and there is no reason to stop such trade.

An attempt by isolationist super nationalists to end trade will result in their death, not by foreigners, but bu their forward looking neighbors

[ClearCase_guy]

I support global trade.

But I have watched the US government intentionally screw US voters for decades. We make horrible trade deals (NAFTA, etc.) which clearly benefit foreigners and clearly screw American voters, consumers and businesses.

Globalism is aimed at hurting America. That’s the purpose of what I call Globalism.

Global trade? I’m all for it. And I expect US politicians to make smart choices so that America can thrive in a world of global trade.

[ClearCase_guy]

I support global trade.

But I have watched the US government intentionally screw US voters for decades. We make horrible trade deals (NAFTA, etc.) which clearly benefit foreigners and clearly screw American voters, consumers and businesses.

Globalism is aimed at hurting America. That’s the purpose of what I call Globalism.

Global trade? I’m all for it. And I expect US politicians to make smart choices so that America can thrive in a world of global trade.

[Neoliberalnot]

. He threatens to slap stiff tariffs on U.S. imports... ...the 1930s; the experiment did not end well”

Really, how did it not end well because of tariffs. The rise of the socialism monster brought on WWII.

[BDParrish]

Someone needs to show how the Hawley-Smoot Tariffs were not destructive since this has been the accepted wisdom among conservatives such as W. F Buckley ever since. We should use logical arguments. Throwing out the word, “Globalism” is not persuasive arguing.

[freedomfiter2]

Many of the greatest problems that we face today have sprung from seeds which were planted by anti American Henry Kissinger.

[ViLaLuz]

0bama and Merkel think by importing high birthrate groups the family formation problem will be solved.

[BDParrish]

There is no reason to be sure that President-elect Trump wants to implement 1930’s style protectionism, given for the sake of argument that would be a bad thing. There are two reasons to reserve judgement on this issue at this time.

First, Trump uses a persuasion technique called “pacing and leading”. Scott Adams describes this as Trump using the strongest rhetoric until the intended audience identifies with him, then modifying the actions toward what he actually wants to do. This is why we are not surprised or bothered when he “moderates” his positions on things like immigration.

Second, the only thing that he has actually signalled at this point is retaliation. As with Hawley-Smoot, so with all “protective tariffs,” the problem is retaliation. Conservative Republican doctrine has been for many years, to not retaliate, turn the other cheek, because “the lesson of history is so clear.” Trump is simply putting the threat of American retaliation back on the table. It is “The Art of the Deal” for all America dontcha know.

Will that work? ...Mehh...I dunno.

The Tariff Act of 1930 was hotly debated at the time. The issues were understood and the predictions came true. Those tariffs pitted state against state, agriculture against industry, buyers against sellers here in our country, and provoked severe retaliation especially from Canada.

Would that happen again? ...uhhh...I dunno, and I doubt you do either. It is hard to study this issue because, well, it’s economics, and it ain’t simple. But pay attention to what lawmakers said to each other in debates over that law. The wiki article is pretty good to start. It does not settle anything, but you can get familiar with the names and the issues. If you accept that history can be a guide in economic study, (huh!) then don’t forget to study our glorious history of tariffs starting with A. Hamilton’s protection of “infant industries,” the “Tariff of Abominations” and the McKinley Tariff of 1890.

Why are we doing this again? Well, all the people that suffered through it are dead. Those who thought that the tariffs brought about the civil war were all dead by the time of the depression. All those who suffered through the depression are now dead and a new wave of protectionism is sweeping the country and anyone who dudn’t like it is a “globalist!” So get ready; it’s comin’!

Maybe Trump is smarter than that and he is pacing and leading.

[GenXteacher]

People without jobs cannot buy goods, no matter how cheap. It is past time to put up some tariffs, and if that ruins some investor-class a-holes who put all their stock in Chicom and Mexican slave labor, too bad. They had a good run for the past two decades, and nothing lasts forever. Time for them to take a few hits.