This Election Isn't Democrats vs Republicans, It's Globalists vs Nationalists

[Islam Imamate]

Of course, the road is going to be bumpy. I'm not so naive as to believe that there won't be issues and setbacks.

I disagree with the idea that globalization is crafted by a small international economic elite and their collaborators. I disagree specifically with the idea that they are sole groups pushing for or benefitting from it.

I'll use my family for example since it's largely immigrants. My mom and her sister lived in this country for decades before my grandfather came over. The ability to trade and communicate and interact with their home country was extremely important to them and they advocated for things that people call globalization today. My dad was the same except his family went to Britain or stayed in Jamaica. Staying close and working together led him to support things that we call globalization.

My wife's family is mostly still in India. My son's is an overseas citizen of India. The freedom to move between his country of birth and the country where his mother's family still lives will be important to him. So will the ability to move assets between the 2 countries as he sees fit (whenever the day comes that he has to make those decisions).

Globalization benefits people who have traveled the world looking for new opportunities and setting up roots. It allows them to take risks because they know that they're not being cut off from the world they knew. I suspect people who don't deal with international relationships regularly might not see how this is beneficial to more than just the corporatists.

I didn't say that.

As far as whether or not this small international economic elite is behind it, well the fact that free trade agreements are kept secret but written with extensive consultation by corporate actors would seem to suggest there's some truth to that. Anything we get of these agreements are leaks or documents watchdog groups sue for while corporate actors get a seat at the table.

 

[n...not crazy]

Lucky for us, Hillary doesn't actually care about anything. She may just be on vacation the whole time. Does she golf?

 

[Higus]

I made a similar observation a few days ago in a thread; I think a lot of debates in the future aren't going to be liberal vs conservative but rather globalist vs nationalist, which could end up having some interesting bi-partisan support or intra-party disagreement. Interesting politics to watch unfold.

I do have one question about globalization: it seems to be a function of advancements to technology moreso than any government influence. If that's the case, are nationalistic policies doomed to fail? Legislation never keeps up with technology. Can a nation with strong nationalistic policies have a competitive economy in a globalized, high-tech world?

 

[panamaican]

I didn't say that.

As far as whether or not this small international economic elite is behind it, well the fact that free trade agreements are kept secret but written with extensive consultation by corporate actors would seem to suggest there's some truth to that. Anything we get of these agreements are leaks or documents watchdog groups sue for while corporate actors get a seat at the table.

I know you didn't say that and I'm not attributing it to you but it is the gist of many complaints - that these agreements are the work of corporate elites and that we're just being dragged along for the ride.

I think that's wrong. What we get from these agreements is directly proportional to what we demand. The difference, to me, is that most people aren't spending their time worrying about the actual agreements while corporations spend all of their time doing so. But this speaks to my larger gripe and why I'm less sympathetic to the complaints.

If the population is largely indifferent to the political process and chooses to remain ignorant as to the positives and negatives of potential trade agreements then they can't complain about their "seat at the table". They have a seat through their elected representatives. It's the one truism to Trump's success that I absolutely agree with. He's saying he's against these type of global trade deals - if a voter is also against these types of deals then Trump is absolutely the best candidate for them.

And he's right on the "why" and it's why he's stirred up the racist and misogynist elements, intentionally or unintentionally. Globalization and international trade deals spread the wealth, so to speak. They expand the labor pool and that means that those who previously held preferred hiring positions (in this country that means white men) are now competing for work in ways that they've never had to. And that absolutely means that they are taking a hit in terms of earnings and social standing. Those people are right to see globalization as something negative because it directly impacts their standing in the world.

But it doesn't hurt America, the nation, and if you're voting for the nation over a specific individual then these deals work for us. And if someone thinks that the corporations are winning the conversation...elect new politicians.

 

[panamaican]

I made a similar observation a few days ago in a thread; I think a lot of debates in the future aren't going to be liberal vs conservative but rather globalist vs nationalist, which could end up having some interesting bi-partisan support or intra-party disagreement. Interesting politics to watch unfold.

I do have one question about globalization: it seems to be a function of advancements to technology moreso than any government influence. If that's the case, are nationalistic policies doomed to fail? Legislation never keeps up with technology. Can a nation with strong nationalistic policies have a competitive economy in a globalized, high-tech world?

In short? Not likely unless they happen to own the important innovations. But without being part of globalized agreements...there's no patent protection so everything becomes part of the public domain anyway.

 

[Ruprecht]

I made a similar observation a few days ago in a thread; I think a lot of debates in the future aren't going to be liberal vs conservative but rather globalist vs nationalist, which could end up having some interesting bi-partisan support or intra-party disagreement. Interesting politics to watch unfold.

I do have one question about globalization: it seems to be a function of advancements to technology moreso than any government influence. If that's the case, are nationalistic policies doomed to fail? Legislation never keeps up with technology. Can a nation with strong nationalistic policies have a competitive economy in a globalized, high-tech world?

It's controversial at best, but Japan, Korea and Taiwan are typically cited as examples of limited protectionism to foster globally competitive industries.
For the most part though, the anti-globalists (thinking in terms of the Brexit, alt-right etc) are still preaching neoliberal economics. A remarkable mental decoupling of cause and effect.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

This election was decided before it even began.

 

[panamaican]

It's controversial at best, but Japan, Korea and Taiwan are typically cited as examples of limited protectionism to foster globally competitive industries.
For the most part though, the anti-globalists (thinking in terms of the Brexit, alt-right etc) are still preaching neoliberal economics. A remarkable mental decoupling of cause and effect.

But rising global protectionism is starting to hurt those nations economically. It's one thing to apply limited protectionism when everyone else is being open. It's another thing for everyone to be engaged in it.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I know you didn't say that and I'm not attributing it to you but it is the gist of many complaints - that these agreements are the work of corporate elites and that we're just being dragged along for the ride.

Fair enough

I think that's wrong. What we get from these agreements is directly proportional to what we demand. The difference, to me, is that most people aren't spending their time worrying about the actual agreements while corporations spend all of their time doing so. But this speaks to my larger gripe and why I'm less sympathetic to the complaints.

If the population is largely indifferent to the political process and chooses to remain ignorant as to the positives and negatives of potential trade agreements then they can't complain about their "seat at the table". They have a seat through their elected representatives. It's the one truism to Trump's success that I absolutely agree with. He's saying he's against these type of global trade deals - if a voter is also against these types of deals then Trump is absolutely the best candidate for them.

And he's right on the "why" and it's why he's stirred up the racist and misogynist elements, intentionally or unintentionally. Globalization and international trade deals spread the wealth, so to speak. They expand the labor pool and that means that those who previously held preferred hiring positions (in this country that means white men) are now competing for work in ways that they've never had to. And that absolutely means that they are taking a hit in terms of earnings and social standing. Those people are right to see globalization as something negative because it directly impacts their standing in the world.

But it doesn't hurt America, the nation, and if you're voting for the nation over a specific individual then these deals work for us. And if someone thinks that the corporations are winning the conversation...elect new politicians.

Well this is where we disagree a bit.This idea of "just elect new politicians" is a bit difficult since the system favors the two major parties who tend to align when it comes to free trade deals. This is why it took an independent posing as a Democrat and a billionaire posing as a politician to get any attention on these issues. There are a few politicians within each party that speak on these issues but they're the minority and they're far outnumbered by those within their party that agree on free trade as implemented. So we're seeing a public that is increasingly sensitive to these issues and responding accordingly so I don't think its fair to say there's an indifference, its just that this concern is up against a lot of momentum from the other side because of corporate influence over our politics.

Another point I'd like to make is that while I don't think free trade and globalization are in and of themselves bad I think that when combined with the increasing economic inequality and decreasing social mobility in this country, which leads to an expansion and calcification of the power of concentrated capital, it can very well turn out poorly for many Americans and the corporate influence on free trade deals themselves and our politics more generally. is evidence of that to me.

 

[Ruprecht]

But rising global protectionism is starting to hurt those nations economically. It's one thing to apply limited protectionism when everyone else is being open. It's another thing for everyone to be engaged in it.

There's always a cost, the question is whether certain social impacts or economic goals might make it worth it in the long run (or national security for that matter).

 

[Metusalemi]

This election was decided before it even began.

Damn. Bill Clinton looks ready for Madame Tussauds.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Damn. Bill Clinton looks ready for Madame Tussauds.

What's the likelihood that Bill cucked Donald? I say its not negligible.

 

[panamaican]

Fair enough

Well this is where we disagree a bit.This idea of "just elect new politicians" is a bit difficult since the system favors the two major parties who tend to align when it comes to free trade deals. This is why it took an independent posing as a Democrat and a billionaire posing as a politician to get any attention on these issues. There are a few politicians within each party that speak on these issues but they're the minority and they're far outnumbered by those within their party that agree on free trade as implemented. So we're seeing a public that is increasingly sensitive to these issues and responding accordingly so I don't think its fair to say there's an indifference, its just that this concern is up against a lot of momentum from the other side because of corporate influence over our politics.

Another point I'd like to make is that while I don't think free trade and globalization are in and of themselves bad I think that when combined with the increasing economic inequality and decreasing social mobility in this country, which leads to an expansion and calcification of the power of concentrated capital, it can very well turn out poorly for many Americans and the corporate influence on free trade deals themselves and our politics more generally. is evidence of that to me.

The parties tend to align when it comes to free trade deals because free trade deals are better for us. The parties also align for public education and roads. That's usually a decent sign that the benefits outweigh the negatives.

I think it's absolutely fair to say there's indifference. No one becomes a politician without being elected. If the pro-trade people outnumber the anti-trade people it's because the pro-trade people are getting more votes. If the argument is that the population isn't indifferent...why do they keep electing pro-trade people in such numbers? Why do they keep re-electing them?

Well, we're going to disagree on that because I think income inequality is an inevitable result of capitalism. People on the forefront of changing demands will take the lion's share of the income. This is where I think certain conservatives are wrong. They want capitalism but they don't want capitalism to impact them or their earnings. That's childish. If someone wants protection from capitalism then they either don't want capitalism or they want more government intervention in the markets. Or they want a more aggressive redistribution model.

All day long people talk about who's lazy and who's not. Who should prioritize education and workplace competitiveness and then they turn around and cry for government protection from the market. People, voters, cannot have it both ways. Either it's a sink or swim, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, may the best man win world...or it's a world where you need the government to protect everyone from the inequalities in the market.

Some people seem to think that the government should protect them from competition but that everyone else needs to just work harder.

 

[panamaican]

There's always a cost, the question is whether certain social impacts or economic goals might make it worth it in the long run (or national security for that matter).

I can agree with that. I don't think most people are thinking about the long run though. I ran across an article discussing how Korea's trade agency is staffed with people with little to no economic or legal training and so don't even truly understand the impact of the decisions that they're making.

 

[Ruprecht]

I can agree with that. I don't think most people are thinking about the long run though. I ran across an article discussing how Korea's trade agency is staffed with people with little to no economic or legal training and so don't even truly understand the impact of the decisions that they're making.

Yeah, I'm not sure Korea's current economic policy still fits the bill though. I think they've largely dropped their protectionism and "neoliberalised" during the '90s (along with everyone else), although the relationship between business and government remains.
It was the transitional period of developing globally competitive industries, starting from a position where they lacked the local expertise and appropriately educated workers, which made the argument for limited protectionism.

 

[Squall Leonhart]

I've voting to eliminate the possibility of nuclear war. Sad part is, I have no idea who to vote for on that end.

I can't believe we talk so much more about ISIS than Russia, China, North Korea. ISIS is a fucking joke compared to possible war with a nuclear power.

 

[Islam Imamate]

The parties tend to align when it comes to free trade deals because free trade deals are better for us. The parties also align for public education and roads. That's usually a decent sign that the benefits outweigh the negatives.

The parties also aligned on arming and funding the Syrian rebels and on the Iraq War, both of which have been disastrous, so I wouldn't take their agreement as evidence that the policy is necessarily good for us.

I think it's absolutely fair to say there's indifference. No one becomes a politician without being elected. If the pro-trade people outnumber the anti-trade people it's because the pro-trade people are getting more votes. If the argument is that the population isn't indifferent...why do they keep electing pro-trade people in such numbers? Why do they keep re-electing them?

Why keep electing them? Because the system only churns out a limited number of candidates that espouse relatively limited policy positions. These candidates may have to get elected but they also need funding to even have a platform so they must play by certain rules which leads to the exclusion of certain policy positions by many of them.

I will concede that people have been indifferent to free trade deals up until recently but it shouldn't surprise anyone that dedicated corporate lawyers and lobbyists might have more time and money to dedicate to this issue than your average working class voter. Which goes back to my point about the power of concentrated capital and its effect on our politics.

Well, we're going to disagree on that because I think income inequality is an inevitable result of capitalism. People on the forefront of changing demands will take the lion's share of the income. This is where I think certain conservatives are wrong. They want capitalism but they don't want capitalism to impact them or their earnings. That's childish. If someone wants protection from capitalism then they either don't want capitalism or they want more government intervention in the markets. Or they want a more aggressive redistribution model.

Well I see it the same way, I just happen to favor more aggressive redistribution models.

All day long people talk about who's lazy and who's not. Who should prioritize education and workplace competitiveness and then they turn around and cry for government protection from the market. People, voters, cannot have it both ways. Either it's a sink or swim, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, may the best man win world...or it's a world where you need the government to protect everyone from the inequalities in the market.

Some people seem to think that the government should protect them from competition but that everyone else needs to just work harder.

Well again I think we agree here. I don't buy into this "blacks need to stop playing the blame game but we also need to stand up to these globalists who are keeping us down!"

And so I believe our government should do more to give us a soft landing into globalization rather than just throw us to the wolves. Unfortunately there isn't a candidate for me in that sense. I have to choose between protectionism or corporate globalism.

 

[BruceLeeOnTRT]

That actually makes zero sense since your government is still nationalistic. Nothing about your representation has changed.

Your labor competition has changed.

Negative. You look at the existing globalist model in the EU, citizen representation is minimal, and majority of policy is decided upon by the European round table of industrialists. You're either thinking of something else, or you've drank the Kool aid and think this system works in citizen favor.

 

[Gandhi]

I mostly agree with what you're saying but that doesn't preclude some issues with the way globalization is implemented in practice. Take your example of the British Empire. Its arguably one of the foundations of the modern globalization process but its implementation led, in part, to the Bengal Famine. So while globalization is a natural process with momentum behind it that does not mean in practice its being implemented with the best interests of the world's citizens in mind.

I don't think globalization as practiced now is going to lead to another tragedy like the Bengal Famine, in fact it could very well allow us to better respond to one, but the idea is that globalization is crafted by a small international economic elite and their collaborators in the political class for their benefit and I think there's some truth to that.

We should be taking about ways on how to smooth globalization, make it win for all, i.e. fix it. Rather we have somehow come to the conclusion that globalization per say is abhorrent and must be stopped. Not saying you disagree with me of course, just make the global point.

 

[Islam Imamate]

We should be taking about ways on how to smooth globalization, make it win for all, i.e. fix it. Rather we have somehow come to the conclusion that globalization per say is abhorrent and must be stopped. Not saying you disagree with me of course, just make the global point.

I agree and I said as much later. I'm not opposed to some protectionist measures if they're done in the service of easing us into globalization.