Neo-Isolationism?

[Bubba Wheels]

Joe Klein writes in the new Time Magazine:
In fact, there appears to be a growing market for a moderate version of 'American First" populism, which has been represented in recent presidential elections only by extremists like Pat Buchanan and Dennis Kucinich. The outlines of this product are well known: more restrictive trade and illegal-immigration policies, a 'bring the troops home soonest' foreign policiy and a more conservative view of social issues like abortion and gay marriage.

The Pew Research Center conducted an extensive survey of the American electorate, dividing voters into nine political types-and while this sort of slicing and dicing is superficial almost by definition, a stunning subtext emerged: the populist proclivities of nearly 70% of the electorate, ranging across the spectrum from "social conservatives" to "disadvantaged Democrats." When Pew asked if it was better for the government to focus on problems at home or be active in the world, the homebodies won 49% to 44% with a dramatic split according to family income (the wealthier, the worldlier).

" I wouldn't be surprised," says (James) Carville, 'if the coming word in American politics was neo-isolationism. Somebody in one of these parties is going to run on this platform."

I knew that I was on the 'cutting edge."

[digamma]

Carville has been saying for some time that he predicts a third party will pull from the Nader left and the Buchanan right and garner about 20% of the popular vote in 2008 based largely on an isolationist platform.

[QuikSand]

Just think of the appeal of the widely-circulated email "forward" that included a hypothetical speech from a US President telling most of the world (in this case, countries that didn't support the US invasion of Iraq, but that's a bit of an aside) to go fuck themselves.

People were forwarding that all over the place, saying "Yeah! This is what I'm all about." I think I recall a vigorous thread to that effect here. I know I received the email from multiple people, including people to whom I'd have given more benefit of the doubt.


Simple and pithy oversimplifications of political issues are the big winners in the battle of ideas right now. How can anything be simpler to sell than "America First" is?

It's positively shocking to hear people's guesses as to how much of the federal government budget goes to things like "foreign aid." People seem to think that what we spend on such matters is actually relevant to things like our budget deficit or economic stability -- as though foreign aid were 20 or 30 per cent of our government spending, and we could really fix things if we just stopped all the handouts.


It's an open question whether you, Bubba, are on the cutting edge of anything, but I do think that this idology is out there on both sides of the political fence. Pat Buchanon could count on about 25-35% of the vote in almost any state's republican primary when he was running... and I suspect an articulate democrat could probably do the same, maybe better.

[JPhillips]

I wonder though if things have changed any. There has always been a strong isolationist thread in America. From the Founders to Wilson to Taft to Buchanon there has always been a desire to wall us off from all of the problems 'over there'. What Klein's column fails to address is whether this strain is really growing.

I agree with Quicksand's general comments on the lack of knowledge of the American public. I think this is the real downside of the "Fuck off" mentality of most of the conservative foriegn policy establishment. It is inevitable that eventually people will start paying attention to the demagoguery and begin to question the whole idea of foriegn involvement.

I think this is just a cyclical event. Everytime we engge ourselves militarily there is a backlash. What frightens me is that this Admin refuses to tell the truth to the public and many people are now seeing a reality that is far different from what they have been told to expect. That disconnect between rhetoric and reality could lead to a real threat of homegrown isolationism.

[MalcPow]

I don't really see this happening. If for no other reason (and there are a whole lot of good ones) than that very statistic mentioned in the article of the huge divide between the wealthy and non-wealthy when it comes to an interest in engagement with the rest of the world. Where does all the money for a campaign come from? Huge multi-nationals, and, you guessed it, the wealthy. So who will any candidate ultimately have to cater to?

I don't mean this with any kind of cynical edge to it either. I don't think an isolationist agenda could possibly make its way out of the kook circles these days. Which is basically where the strength of this "changing demographic" resides, although thankfully in disconnected kookdoms. Just don't see it happening. The shifting ideals mentioned in the article other than foreign policy are all very hotly divided issues as well, which leads me to the conclusion that there isn't really much strength in a third party candidate that takes a hard stand on all of them.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Just think of the appeal of the widely-circulated email "forward" that included a hypothetical speech from a US President telling most of the world (in this case, countries that didn't support the US invasion of Iraq, but that's a bit of an aside) to go fuck themselves.

People were forwarding that all over the place, saying "Yeah! This is what I'm all about." I think I recall a vigorous thread to that effect here. I know I received the email from multiple people, including people to whom I'd have given more benefit of the doubt.


Simple and pithy oversimplifications of political issues are the big winners in the battle of ideas right now. How can anything be simpler to sell than "America First" is?

It's positively shocking to hear people's guesses as to how much of the federal government budget goes to things like "foreign aid." People seem to think that what we spend on such matters is actually relevant to things like our budget deficit or economic stability -- as though foreign aid were 20 or 30 per cent of our government spending, and we could really fix things if we just stopped all the handouts.


It's an open question whether you, Bubba, are on the cutting edge of anything, but I do think that this idology is out there on both sides of the political fence. Pat Buchanon could count on about 25-35% of the vote in almost any state's republican primary when he was running... and I suspect an articulate democrat could probably do the same, maybe better.

Quick, aren't you an economics professor ? And thoughts on Sachs ? I admit I lean far more to the right than he does, but he did make some salient points on foreign aid (went to hear him speak at Harvard). I do think the American public doesnt realize that the total amount in aid that the GDP standard wants is essentialy 70 cents per 100 dollars- hell, 35 cents per 100 dollars would constitute more than a doubling of US foreign aid, and would do wonders for their public image.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by MalcPow

I don't really see this happening. If for no other reason (and there are a whole lot of good ones) than that very statistic mentioned in the article of the huge divide between the wealthy and non-wealthy when it comes to an interest in engagement with the rest of the world. Where does all the money for a campaign come from? Huge multi-nationals, and, you guessed it, the wealthy. So who will any candidate ultimately have to cater to?

I don't mean this with any kind of cynical edge to it either. I don't think an isolationist agenda could possibly make its way out of the kook circles these days. Which is basically where the strength of this "changing demographic" resides, although thankfully in disconnected kookdoms. Just don't see it happening. The shifting ideals mentioned in the article other than foreign policy are all very hotly divided issues as well, which leads me to the conclusion that there isn't really much strength in a third party candidate that takes a hard stand on all of them.

So let me understand you: If Americans finally get fed up with sending their own sons and daughters around the world to clean up everybody else's messes, and quit allowing other equally rich or richer countries to freeload off of our military commitments, start protecting our own boarders in accordance with our own laws and statutes, and start giving our own workers some protection against wanton dumping-of-goods and outsourcing of services/manufacturing from and by foreign countries, then they are 'kooks' and live in 'kookdoms?" Very interesting analysis on your part.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

The Pew Research Center conducted an extensive survey of the American electorate, dividing voters into nine political types-and while this sort of slicing and dicing is superficial almost by definition, a stunning subtext emerged: the populist proclivities of nearly 70% of the electorate, ranging across the spectrum from "social conservatives" to "disadvantaged Democrats." When Pew asked if it was better for the government to focus on problems at home or be active in the world, the homebodies won 49% to 44% with a dramatic split according to family income (the wealthier, the worldlier).

" I wouldn't be surprised," says (James) Carville, 'if the coming word in American politics was neo-isolationism. Somebody in one of these parties is going to run on this platform."

I knew that I was on the 'cutting edge."

I have a hard time with reporting from the Washington Times, a Moonie newspaper. Not a great source...

However, I'm surprised it was only 49% to 44% when asked if it was better for the government to focus on problems at home or be active in the world. I figured it would be 70/30. That's a pretty simple question. However, that cannot be interpreted as whether the USA should be Isolationist or not. That's a poor leap of logic. Next!

When you supposedly divide voters into nine political types and find that 70% of the voters are one of the types, then the problem is the way you've divided your types. That's pretty easy to figure out. Next!

Of course, since it's the Democrats who don't want the troops in Iraq and instead want focus on domestic issues...this suggests to me that perhaps they're more the mainstream party. Next!

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I have a hard time with reporting from the Washington Times, a Moonie newspaper. Not a great source...

However, I'm surprised it was only 49% to 44% when asked if it was better for the government to focus on problems at home or be active in the world. I figured it would be 70/30. That's a pretty simple question. However, that cannot be interpreted as whether the USA should be Isolationist or not. That's a poor leap of logic. Next!

When you supposedly divide voters into nine political types and find that 70% of the voters are one of the types, then the problem is the way you've divided your types. That's pretty easy to figure out. Next!

Of course, since it's the Democrats who don't want the troops in Iraq and instead want focus on domestic issues...this suggests to me that perhaps they're more the mainstream party. Next!

Well, I could say that the Democrats don't want a military, period. But that's another thread.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, I could say that the Democrats don't want a military, period. But that's another thread.

You could say that...but you would be wrong (as usual).

I can say that monkeys will fly out of your butt at Midnight and that I'm Louis the XIV, but that doesn't mean those are facts.

[JPhillips]

ALL HAIL THE SUN KING!

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

then they are 'kooks' and live in 'kookdoms?" Very interesting analysis on your part.

Lets actually address the crap you put out for once:

If Americans finally get fed up with sending their own sons and daughters around the world to clean up everybody else's messes

1. The Iraqi mess was a cleanup of your own choice- hell, it can be argued your weapons sales to Sadaam and your support to him in the 80's is what helped him get where he was in the first place. F

and quit allowing other equally rich or richer countries to freeload off of our military commitments,

2. Where/ what freeloading ? You are intent on being the policeman of the world- shouldn't you bear the cost ? Mind you, much of Europe admittedly leaves some responsibility as it were (in the greater sense of the word) to the US- but they make up for it in a lack of power in the decision-making. Cite some examples.

start protecting our own boarders in accordance with our own laws and statutes,

3. The borders built on immigration and mass invasion ? The immigrants that make this country function ? Pray tell.

and start giving our own workers some protection against wanton dumping-of-goods and outsourcing of services/manufacturing from and by foreign countries,

4. Yawn, Bubba - you don't believe in the free-market ? Their are about 8 million US jobs today present due to "foreign" companies. US interest rates are at historic lows because foreigners are willing to pay for your spending sprees. The dumping you talk about (referring to it, without understanding the term) gives consumers lower prices - unless you want idiotic protection like the steel industry, which costs the US a few hundred thousand dollars accross the board in higher costs.

then they are 'kooks' and live in 'kookdoms?" Very interesting analysis on your part.

Yes, they are- because they don't understand economics, foreign policy, free trade but instead resort to tried populist rhetoric aimed at the least intelligent segment of the population - which it is admittedly succeeding at.

[Raiders Army]

Burn!

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

1. The Iraqi mess was a cleanup of your own choice- hell, it can be argued your weapons sales to Sadaam and your support to him in the 80's is what helped him get where he was in the first place. F

Proving my point exactly! Why were we involved with this in the first place? But as a sidenote: When it comes to arms sales to tinpot third world dictators, nobody holds a candle to Europe and Russia.



2. Where/ what freeloading ? You are intent on being the policeman of the world- shouldn't you bear the cost ? Mind you, much of Europe admittedly leaves some responsibility as it were (in the greater sense of the word) to the US- but they make up for it in a lack of power in the decision-making. Cite some examples.

You prove my point again! You expect us to be the 'world's policeman so you can freeload! The real simple-minds here are those buying into the myth that we have to be the world's policeman at all! Let Nato (without U.S. involvement since they left us holding the bag on Iraq) handle all the new ones and they can do whatever the heck they want to.



3. The borders built on immigration and mass invasion ? The immigrants that make this country function ? Pray tell.

This is just insipid. The very fact that I would have to point out the difference between legal and illegal to you at all shows you have somekind of political blindness at work for some self-interest. I can only guess as to what.



4. Yawn, Bubba - you don't believe in the free-market ? Their are about 8 million US jobs today present due to "foreign" companies. US interest rates are at historic lows because foreigners are willing to pay for your spending sprees. The dumping you talk about (referring to it, without understanding the term) gives consumers lower prices - unless you want idiotic protection like the steel industry, which costs the US a few hundred thousand dollars accross the board in higher costs.

Free market means EVERYBODY plays fair! When the Chinese and other countries dump steel on us to blow out our own steel workers and industry knowing that they will profit long-term that ain't playing fair! Next from China will be the cars, manufactured by auto workers making $2.00 an hour. And the Chinese continue to close off their own markets in many areas until we finally threaten them with our own tariff protection, only to see them give in just enough to get by and still not play fair! This is your idea of good business? Besides, EVERY part of Chinese business is somehow part of the Chinese military, so they get subsidized by their government.


Yes, they are- because they don't understand economics, foreign policy, free trade but instead resort to tried populist rhetoric aimed at the least intelligent segment of the population - which it is admittedly succeeding at.

Or, in some cases, we see through your own self-serving BS and are finally going to do something postive for ourselves about it.

BTW, I answer each point below in the quote section above.

[Bubba Wheels]

dola, the biggest con on the American people is that we need to globalize to the extent that its being sold to us. Fact is, the U.S. is big enough on its own that it should be self-sufficient if we never traded with anyone overseas!

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

dola, the biggest con on the American people is that we need to globalize to the extent that its being sold to us. Fact is, the U.S. is big enough on its own that it should be self-sufficient if we never traded with anyone overseas!

That is an embarassing statement to make.

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

So let me understand you: If Americans finally get fed up with sending their own sons and daughters around the world to clean up everybody else's messes, and quit allowing other equally rich or richer countries to freeload off of our military commitments, start protecting our own boarders in accordance with our own laws and statutes, and start giving our own workers some protection against wanton dumping-of-goods and outsourcing of services/manufacturing from and by foreign countries, then they are 'kooks' and live in 'kookdoms?" Very interesting analysis on your part.

I guess I'll start broadly and work my way down. Third-world poverty and desperation are not "everybody else's" messes. Leaving these messes lying around cultivates environments where tyrannical and extremist regimes are allowed to flourish, allowed to oppress freedom, allowed to deny social mobility, and allowed to train, harbor, and finance groups that seek to further a cause of destroying American lives and institutions. Americans don't send their sons and daughters anywhere, adults that happen to (due to biological necessity) be sons and daughters make a decision to serve this country honorably in our armed forces, and in making that decision take on the responsibilities of that service. Clearly I believe we have a moral responsibility, as well as an historical one, to try to make a better and safer world possible for those that will come after us. Clearly you don't agree with that, congratulations, this doesn't necessarily make you a kook, but it gets you off to a good start.

Your other points. First off, we (as American institutions, corporations, and citizens) are buying goods from foreign corporations and outsourcing services to foreign corporations (or in most cases simply foreign branch operations of our own corporations). Your point is that we should protect ourselves from... ourselves. Not my cup of tea.

Second, protecting our borders. I think that people overly concerned with immigration from our southern border are mostly racist. That's basically my reading between the lines perspective on people that sit in lawn chairs on the border with rifles. I think we'd be a lot better off if we opened immigration channels, gave people identities here in the US (ssn's or equivalents, etc.), and focused on integrating and monitoring immigrants as opposed to trying to impossibly deny anyone from entering the country. Again I realize quite clearly you don't agree, and also that I just called you a racist (which is below the belt, and obviously I'm not really in a position to make a judgment like that about you, so temper the offendedness with that) but that's been my experience on the issue.

Third, what the hey, I throw words like kook and kookdom around. I think the noisiest people I disagree with on issues like this are basically kooks, but understand as well that a number of people lean those ways without really being all that extremist or closed-minded. So they're not all kooks, but I'm getting good odds.

[ISiddiqui]

Crapshoot with quite a ZING! there

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

That is an embarassing statement to make.

Why? We are as big as Europe is as a whole, or South America.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

dola, the biggest con on the American people is that we need to globalize to the extent that its being sold to us. Fact is, the U.S. is big enough on its own that it should be self-sufficient if we never traded with anyone overseas!

Of course! On the other hand, if you wish to have a minimum wage, if you wish to pay a lot more for every item you buy, if you wish to eliminate customer choice and innovation, and if you wish to magically find fairies who will do your production at international costs, its clearly viable! Bubba, seriously - please, please learn some economics.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Why? We are as big as Europe is as a whole, or South America.

And how much does Europe trade with countries outside the EU? It's a pretty large number, mind.

And I'd rather buy my Sony's than having to buy some RCA crap, anyway . And don't get me started on cars!

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Of course! On the other hand, if you wish to have a minimum wage, if you wish to pay a lot more for every item you buy, and if you wish to magically find fairies who will do your production at international costs, its clearly viable! Bubba, seriously - please, please learn some economics.

That would mean he'd have to argue with facts.

[Bubba Wheels]

BTW, I am not saying that we shouldn't trade with the rest of the world, just saying that its a con-job on how we are always being held hostage to what is happening in other places like India and China.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Why? We are as big as Europe is as a whole, or South America.

You want to know why? We can't regulate our consumption. We might have the ability to be self-sufficient, but not the capacity to do it. Otherwise we wouldn't have the multi-billion dollar trade gaps each month.

Isolationism served the county well during it's first 150 or so years. Or should I say, one way isolationism. We had much more coming in than we did going out. We had large oceans on either side, and relatively peaceful neighbors on the north and south (with a couple of notable exceptions).

But in today's world, that won't cut it anymore. Say we do go isolationist. The next 9/11 comes along. Guess what? We will end up right back where we are today.

[ISiddiqui]

Held hostage? Funny, I think that people from third world countries would say that WE are holding THEM hostage, and there is more truth to their claims than an American saying globalization is holding the US hostage (LOL!).

Globalization gives the US its power. That's why we rule the world, because this is OUR economic world order.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

BTW, I am not saying that we shouldn't trade with the rest of the world, just saying that its a con-job on how we are always being held hostage to what is happening in other places like India and China.

And since those two out of every five people on the planet are either Indian or Chinese, we ought to be paying close attention to what's going on there.

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

BTW, I am not saying that we shouldn't trade with the rest of the world, just saying that its a con-job on how we are always being held hostage to what is happening in other places like India and China.

But those places are much more hostage to us than we are to them. The entire global economy right now is depending almost entirely on the fact that you will not save a dime on this Friday's paycheck Bubba, and that you'll run up a healthy amount of credit card debt as well. Everybody is counting on the American consumer at the moment, we're not hostage to anybody.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by MalcPow

But those places are much more hostage to us than we are to them. The entire global economy right now is depending almost entirely on the fact that you will not save a dime on this Friday's paycheck Bubba, and that you'll run up a healthy amount of credit card debt as well. Everybody is counting on the American consumer at the moment, we're not hostage to anybody.

Great minds thinking alike and all that .

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Quick, aren't you an economics professor ? And thoughts on Sachs ? I admit I lean far more to the right than he does, but he did make some salient points on foreign aid (went to hear him speak at Harvard). I do think the American public doesnt realize that the total amount in aid that the GDP standard wants is essentialy 70 cents per 100 dollars- hell, 35 cents per 100 dollars would constitute more than a doubling of US foreign aid, and would do wonders for their public image.

I have very ambivalent feelings about foreign aid generally. Depending on my mood, what I've been reading lately, and any number of other things, I can probably be persuaded to move fairly widely along the pro/con spectrum.

Jeffrey Sachs is a fascinating guy, with enough charisma to make you want to believe him. I saw him give a talk about Poland several years ago, and that night I probably would have accepted a Fulbright to go over there the next morning if I could have.

Is he right that a pretty nominal sum of money could make a huge difference in the world? Of course he is. And in my mind, humanitarian reasons make a very compelling case that we ought to do so -- setting aside economics pretty much entirely. You have, no doubt, seen the positively obscene statistics about how many people in this world are dying from diseases that are completely treatable with rather inexpensive medications that simply are not available due to the lack of profit-driven market mechanisms to get them there. Food is much the same, though perhaps not as stark. Should nations that have what we have give enough so that the rest of the world can at least maintain a standard of human dignity? I think it's hard to argue against that... but implicitly, we have reached a political consensus that says it's just not important to us. Any even those of us who might disagree with that, by our widespread inaction, essenitally endorse this decision.

As far as an edonomic rationale, I think that's a tougher call. We could spend great sums of money on infrastructure and development in all parts of the "developing" world (for much of which that is a misnomer). In theory, we could sow seeds for growth economies and greatet consumerism -- which, oddly enough, is probably the real goal that was as a people share, not "freedom' as you might be led to believe. (Yes, the greatest American founding father is truly Henry Ford, rather than Thomas Jefferson) But this sort of investment elsewhere is frought with imperialist consequences that seem inseparable from the effort itself. I don't think you can step in, fix the roads and water supply, and step out without interfering substantially with that other culture and society.

There's an interesting parallel, in my view, between the matter of "taking care of the lower class" -- a debate that rages on within this country -- and "taking care of the lower class of nations." Many of the same con arguments -- along the lines of incentive and bootstrapping -- probably play some role in our appropriate treatment of the rest of the world.


But I think it's all moot. Any presidential candidate who stands up and suggests that we increase tenfold our contribution to foreign aid would probably receive about as many votes as... well... as Dennis Kucinich.

[JPhillips]

Bubba: I'll try to make a couple of points without attacking you.

1) How do China and India hold us hostage? US companies make billions in China and China is one of the only reasons that we can continue to run up our national debt. India is also a haven for US corporations. Now they don't always play the way we would hope, but its our own corporations as much as anything else that keeps the US government from getting tough. If China suddenly kicked out all US companies the world economy would go into a depression.

2) There is no way we can support ourselves. Some of its raw resources(ie oil) and some of its manufactured products that US companies don't make on US soil anymore(ie microchips, a lot of clothing, ball gags). Trade is essential to us, not a givaway to the rest of the world.

3) Political isolation can't work as long as we need trade goods from the rest of the world. Can we be less involved militarily, yes, but we can't just take our ball and go home without destroying our way of life.

I agree that we can do better in trade agreements and that we often sell out the worker to accomodate the desires of business leaders, but isolationism isn't the answer. That will only make the problem worse.

[Crapshoot]

1. That was a foreign policy choice made by your government, on the basis that it would be a preventive measure in the future. I did agree at the time when I thought it was based on rational intelligence. THe point being - it was an American choice to do so.

2. Lets try reading - I said that You (the US) are intent on being the world's policeman (see 1) - how does that translate into a desire on my part for this ? If 1 is the goal of American foreign policy, 2 is a neccessary cost. If you wish to be an isolationist, attempt to change US foreign policy from within - its been a fairly consistent stance in the post Cold-War era.

3. Self-Interest- I am a "legal" immigrant, for whatever its worth. I know for a fact that I contribute more to the economy, since I paid in full for my entire education (without government loans, at market rates), and I pay taxes and social security I'm not likely to benefit from. However, my larger point is that the country was built on immigration. Who's going to do the agricultural work you want to protect without Mexican immigrants ? American food prices are ridiculously high now- get rid of the migrants and pay "American" wages, and they will shoot through the roof. Find me Americans willing to work those hours at that pay. Immigration is a net benefit for this country, and its not even close.

4. Free-market means you pay market value - In China, $2 an hour is market value, because costs of living differ. What on earth are you ranting about the steel industry ? The Steel industry is the second most protected "industry" in the US - the amount it costs everyone else to support your average steel worker (in higher government spending, in higher car prices, etc) is far above market value. The Chinese army line may have somewhat true 10 years ago, but not today. This long-term profit crap you spout is ridiculous - if the Chinese raise their prices, the Indians or the Africans will step in - its not a crowding out effect, no matter how long you and the other protectionists crow.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

BTW, I am not saying that we shouldn't trade with the rest of the world, just saying that its a con-job on how we are always being held hostage to what is happening in other places like India and China.

This is a very flawed, yet widely held view of international labor.

Set aside matters like working conditions (meaningful enough issue, but wholly separable from the essential point here) and all this is about is the basic cost of living in each country. In a richly consumerist society like ours, we simply assume that every person is entitled to have a wide range of amenities as part of our basic standard of living -- and the workforce isn't particularly interested in working hard unless that translates to having enough money for an iPod, a DVD recorder, and a waterbed. Yet, there are places in this world where there are competent workers, who do a perfectly acceptable job, whose demands -- for vast cultural and economic differences -- are much less.

If I am a decision-maker in a firm, a firm with many shareholders to whom I owe the responsibility of acting in thier best financial decisions, who am I going to hire to answer my phones? The group doing it for $9.50 an hour plus four breaks a day and extended benefits? Or the group who is perfectly willing to do it, under perfectly reasonable conditions, for a fourth of that cost?

There's no con job being run here... unless you count the Americans who think that they can simultaneously (a) demand that Amercian jobs be protected at all costs against rival sources from other countries, and (b) demand that they still can buy a DVD player at Wal Mart for $34.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

BTW, I am not saying that we shouldn't trade with the rest of the world, just saying that its a con-job on how we are always being held hostage to what is happening in other places like India and China.

Too late. They're already replacing our middle-class.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I have very ambivalent feelings about foreign aid generally. Depending on my mood, what I've been reading lately, and any number of other things, I can probably be persuaded to move fairly widely along the pro/con spectrum.

Jeffrey Sachs is a fascinating guy, with enough charisma to make you want to believe him. I saw him give a talk about Poland several years ago, and that night I probably would have accepted a Fulbright to go over there the next morning if I could have.

Is he right that a pretty nominal sum of money could make a huge difference in the world? Of course he is. And in my mind, humanitarian reasons make a very compelling case that we ought to do so -- setting aside economics pretty much entirely. You have, no doubt, seen the positively obscene statistics about how many people in this world are dying from diseases that are completely treatable with rather inexpensive medications that simply are not available due to the lack of profit-driven market mechanisms to get them there. Food is much the same, though perhaps not as stark. Should nations that have what we have give enough so that the rest of the world can at least maintain a standard of human dignity? I think it's hard to argue against that... but implicitly, we have reached a political consensus that says it's just not important to us. Any even those of us who might disagree with that, by our widespread inaction, essenitally endorse this decision.

As far as an edonomic rationale, I think that's a tougher call. We could spend great sums of money on infrastructure and development in all parts of the "developing" world (for much of which that is a misnomer). In theory, we could sow seeds for growth economies and greatet consumerism -- which, oddly enough, is probably the real goal that was as a people share, not "freedom' as you might be led to believe. (Yes, the greatest American founding father is truly Henry Ford, rather than Thomas Jefferson) But this sort of investment elsewhere is frought with imperialist consequences that seem inseparable from the effort itself. I don't think you can step in, fix the roads and water supply, and step out without interfering substantially with that other culture and society.

There's an interesting parallel, in my view, between the matter of "taking care of the lower class" -- a debate that rages on within this country -- and "taking care of the lower class of nations." Many of the same con arguments -- along the lines of incentive and bootstrapping -- probably play some role in our appropriate treatment of the rest of the world.


But I think it's all moot. Any presidential candidate who stands up and suggests that we increase tenfold our contribution to foreign aid would probably receive about as many votes as... well... as Dennis Kucinich.

Interesting- you're right of course about the charisma - Sachs is impressive, though I could do without the political digs. The day after the talk, I doubled my admittedly mediocre annual pledge to MSF. What's interesting to me is that I am skeptic of simply throwing money at the problem, having lived in Africa etc (as the son of a former UNICEF employee) - sometimes you cause more problems than you solve, when you build a fancy water system for one village as opposed to a hundred others. I've seen cases where they waste money like you wouldnt believe (a conference center for the UN), but I've also seen the impact the money that gets though actually makes. And too often, the corruption arguement (usually overstated) is used as a cop-out to avoid anything. More so, I hate it when proponents of the market system do this - especially since American trade policy is set up to not allow them to compete. Hell, I think if you completely cancelled African aid in return for completely opening American markets to competition in food, cotton, and so forth - everyone would benefit. Its a trade-off I would gladly take - if the alternative is the current status.

As for the imperialistic consequences, I think thats somewhat overstated. American companies are not hated- American foreign policy is somewhat different. Thomas Friedman, in a rare insight, pointed out that the your average bomber drinks Coke, wears Jeans, watches American movies and then plots attacks on America. American culture proliferates because it sells, and if offers the youth a freedom that traditional culture sometimes doesnt (speaking from personal experience) - I don't view as a bad thing. Admittedly, there is a loss to the world when generic Pax Americana is the staple - but surely there is something driving the desire towards it.


Switching tracks, One major problem is the lack of a profit incentive to drive innovation in health care on diseases like Malaria- the lack of a rich, American market for any such drug means little drug research is directed towards it- something like 2-3% of drug research money goes into diseases that cause 70-75% of the worlds death (Malaria of course being the biggest culprit). I do think the market can help though - One of the more interesing approaches I've read recently consist of taking drought insurance, as it were - where the World Bank would purchase insurance based on crop yields and rainfall in sub-Saharan Africa - with payouts only in drought. For a relatively low cost, you would insure protection in the worst of times - and your aid would go to a market mechanism, and is less likely to be "wasted", as it were.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

There's no con job being run here... unless you count the Americans who think that they can simultaneously (a) demand that Amercian jobs be protected at all costs against rival sources from other countries, and (b) demand that they still can buy a DVD player at Wal Mart for $34.

This, in a nutshell, is the American consumer's paradox - and one they often refuse to acknowledge.

[st.cronin]

History's lesson for America is that isolationism is a disastrous and pointless policy. The world will involve us whether we wish it or not.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

History's lesson for America is that isolationism is a disastrous and pointless policy. The world will involve us whether we wish it or not.

A book by Jack Weatherford called Genghis Khan and the rise of the modern world would caution us not to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. It's a book for globalization by any means both by military and diplomacy. I must admit though that to the majority of the maleducated/informed isolationism would be a solution to everything.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Dola: The only way the nation becomes isolationist is in the event of a Global Pandemic, which wipes out a majority of the population. But I dont think as a whole nation we can though, maybe cities or towns isolating themselves creating fiefdoms of their own due to the disease. But this really wont work since cities relies on commercial goods to be imported in order to thrive.ie: Barstow Ca., Bakersfield, and of course The Las Vegas Metropolitan area. So in the event of a Pandemic were Damned either way.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

Dola: The only way the nation becomes isolationist is in the event of a Global Pandemic, which wipes out a majority of the population. But I dont think as a whole nation we can though, maybe cities or towns isolating themselves creating fiefdoms of their own due to the disease. But this really wont work since cities relies on commercial goods to be imported in order to thrive.ie: Barstow Ca., Bakersfield, and of course The Las Vegas Metropolitan area. So in the event of a Pandemic were Damned either way.

I read a manual on how to survive this. Head to Boulder, CO, and try to avoid Randall Flagg.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by cartman

I read a manual on how to survive this. Head to Boulder, CO, and try to avoid Randall Flagg.

And avoid Vegas at all costs

SI

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

And avoid Vegas at all costs

I'd rather perish.

[Crapshoot]

I'm still curious to see if Bubba will come back and actually address the points in question.

[sterlingice]

Aw, and I was content to just let this thread devolve into reference about The Stand.

SI

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Held hostage? Funny, I think that people from third world countries would say that WE are holding THEM hostage, and there is more truth to their claims than an American saying globalization is holding the US hostage (LOL!).

Globalization gives the US its power. That's why we rule the world, because this is OUR economic world order.

First, didn't mean to dissappear from this thread, but spent the week in North Carolina (fascinating state.) Interestingly enough, though, for being one of the so-called 'booming sun-states" economically they just announced the closing of a Thomasville plant. Couple this with the closing of a Steelcase plant in Grand Rapids (office furniture) few weeks ago and we got problems most are not even looking at yet.

To answer your statement above, maybe, but its only going to be ours long enough for the Chinese to take it away from us. They can import their goods to us to their heart's desire, steal our intellectual properties (dvd, software and movie piracy allowed to flourish) and keep their markets under lock and key but keep 'promising' future considerations to prevent retaliation. Not to mention their continued military expansion. Yet they are still considered 'third world', so in your view we are 'holding them hostage?" To what?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

1. That was a foreign policy choice made by your government, on the basis that it would be a preventive measure in the future. I did agree at the time when I thought it was based on rational intelligence. THe point being - it was an American choice to do so.

2. Lets try reading - I said that You (the US) are intent on being the world's policeman (see 1) - how does that translate into a desire on my part for this ? If 1 is the goal of American foreign policy, 2 is a neccessary cost. If you wish to be an isolationist, attempt to change US foreign policy from within - its been a fairly consistent stance in the post Cold-War era.

3. Self-Interest- I am a "legal" immigrant, for whatever its worth. I know for a fact that I contribute more to the economy, since I paid in full for my entire education (without government loans, at market rates), and I pay taxes and social security I'm not likely to benefit from. However, my larger point is that the country was built on immigration. Who's going to do the agricultural work you want to protect without Mexican immigrants ? American food prices are ridiculously high now- get rid of the migrants and pay "American" wages, and they will shoot through the roof. Find me Americans willing to work those hours at that pay. Immigration is a net benefit for this country, and its not even close.

4. Free-market means you pay market value - In China, $2 an hour is market value, because costs of living differ. What on earth are you ranting about the steel industry ? The Steel industry is the second most protected "industry" in the US - the amount it costs everyone else to support your average steel worker (in higher government spending, in higher car prices, etc) is far above market value. The Chinese army line may have somewhat true 10 years ago, but not today. This long-term profit crap you spout is ridiculous - if the Chinese raise their prices, the Indians or the Africans will step in - its not a crowding out effect, no matter how long you and the other protectionists crow.

1. Maybe that was a 'calculated' decision made by our government, and I say it is a wrong one. I've stated it before about Nato, so I'll leave it at that. I support our troops, but as long as it remains a volunteer force its up to those individuals to determine if they want to be used for that. Enlistment numbers would indicate no. Necessary cost? Easy for you to say.

2. Do we, as a sovereign nation, have a right to enact and enforce our own immigration laws? Or does that make us 'racist?" And if the later, how to you justify Mexico itself using its own armed forces on the Guatemalan border to keep them out of Mexico? And if you want to say that we owe it to Mexico but Mexico doesn't owe it to Guatemala then your just a hypocrite.

3. If you don't think that the Chinese army is the controlling entity behind all Chinese business (News Flash: China is still a Military State!) Then your just in a fantasy world.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Bubba: I'll try to make a couple of points without attacking you.

1) How do China and India hold us hostage? US companies make billions in China and China is one of the only reasons that we can continue to run up our national debt. India is also a haven for US corporations. Now they don't always play the way we would hope, but its our own corporations as much as anything else that keeps the US government from getting tough. If China suddenly kicked out all US companies the world economy would go into a depression.

2) There is no way we can support ourselves. Some of its raw resources(ie oil) and some of its manufactured products that US companies don't make on US soil anymore(ie microchips, a lot of clothing, ball gags). Trade is essential to us, not a givaway to the rest of the world.

3) Political isolation can't work as long as we need trade goods from the rest of the world. Can we be less involved militarily, yes, but we can't just take our ball and go home without destroying our way of life.

I agree that we can do better in trade agreements and that we often sell out the worker to accomodate the desires of business leaders, but isolationism isn't the answer. That will only make the problem worse.

Certain coporations, such as GM but not limited to, with growing presence and interests in both China and India have influenced our government to avoid penalty for shifting those interests away from the U.S. This is good for the big fish, such as Kirk Kerkorian, but not for American workers.

I am not advocating not trading with the rest of the world, just making that trade "Fair!" For instance, for years the Japanese have prevented American farmers from importing rice because it would compete with their own farmers. How can this be 'fair." Ever hear their rationale? Truth: "The Japanese colon is shorter than the American one, and as such cannot adequately digest the American longer-grain rice." You think I made that up, don't you?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Certain coporations, such as GM but not limited to, with growing presence and interests in both China and India have influenced our government to avoid penalty for shifting those interests away from the U.S. This is good for the big fish, such as Kirk Kerkorian, but not for American workers.

I am not advocating not trading with the rest of the world, just making that trade "Fair!" For instance, for years the Japanese have prevented American farmers from importing rice because it would compete with their own farmers. How can this be 'fair." Ever hear their rationale? Truth: "The Japanese colon is shorter than the American one, and as such cannot adequately digest the American longer-grain rice." You think I made that up, don't you?

You poor, misinformed, misanthrope. Have you reviewed US trade laws recently ? Do you realize that you pay farmers 3-4 times what world prices are for agricultural goods ? Do you realize that farmers are paid NOT to produce ? Here's one example: " The Consolidated Appropriations Resolution passed by Congress in February 2003 awarded $35 million in “disaster assistance” to the domestic shrimp industry (see attached excerpt from the Congressional resolution".

More fun examples of US trade laws:

On December 3, 1998, the White House issued a document called "Presidential Proclamation of Imports of Broom Corn Brooms." It observed that the United States International Trade Commission "found that imports of such brooms produced in Mexico, considered individually, accounted for a substantial share of total imports of broom corn brooms and contributed importantly to the serious injury caused by imports, but that such brooms produced in Canada did not so account or contribute."

In response to this investigation, and presumably to correct the "serious injury" inflicted by Mexican broom corn brooms, the US government hiked duties on these super-low-tech items. Eventually, President Clinton decided that the US "broom corn broom industry [had] not made adequate efforts to make a positive adjustment to import competition." Subsequently, these increased duties were dropped.

Though ultimately scrapped, the fact remains that Washington imposed duties on Mexican corn brooms, of all things, between November 28, 1996 and December 3, 1998. I wonder how many broom corn growers in Mexico survived this two-year assault on their livelihoods?

The sugar program begins with a government-set price floor. While the world market price currently is about 7 cents per pound, Washington fixes domestic prices at 18 cents per pound for raw cane sugar and 23 cents per pound for refined beet sugar. The General Accounting Office estimates that this law costs consumers an extra $1.4 billion per year. The Public Voice for Food and Health Policy calculates that politically-set table sugar prices alone cost consumers an extra $200 million annually.

This policy restricts foreign sugar through country-specific quotas and a cap on total imports of 1.6 million metric tons, or about 19.5 percent of annual US consumption

Foreign entities may not own more than a 25 percent share of American broadcast assets. If Disney chose to sell the ABC Network to Sony, for instance, it could not. On the eve of World War I, the US government feared that foreign powers might purchase US radio frequencies and abuse them in times of combat. Today, the Radio Act of 1912 is as timely as a Model T.

Imagine that Slobodan Milosevic and Serb state television somehow purchased an American broadcast network. So what? If it ran non-stop pro-Serb propaganda, the First Amendment permits that. The other broadcast networks, C-Span, the Fox News Channel, CNN, and even Comedy Central could refute and ridicule Slobbo's every word. The republic would survive.

While US carriers may fly anyone from, say, Miami to New York, foreign airlines may not accept passengers at one US destination and fly them to another. In June 1998, I experienced the full absurdity of this policy while flying Aerolineas Argentinas. The 747 on which I rode left Buenos Aires nearly full. All but about 120 passengers deplaned in Miami. On the way to JFK, the jet was filled with empty seats. Lucky us.

Meanwhile, as Bruce Woodrow of Carlson Wagonlit Travel in Fairfax, Virginia later discovered, US citizens travelling from Miami to JFK had to depart 30 minutes later on a packed American Airlines flight with only eight vacant seats. Argentines and Americans alike would have been better off were it not a violation of federal law for those stuck in Miami to hitch a ride to Gotham aboard a nearly-empty 747

What if one wanted to move products rather than passengers? Beware the Jones Act. This silly 1920 law forbids non-American ships from hauling cargo between US ports. If, say, a Korean freighter could move bulldozers more economically, even on such a direct route as from San Diego to Honolulu, they would be prohibited from doing so. The bulldozers must travel instead on a US ship. The International Trade Commission says that sinking the Jones Act could slash shipping prices by 26 percent. The Institute for International Economics estimates that such trade rules cost American consumers $70 billion annually, or over $1,000 per family.

If you're going to throw stones Bubba- realize that you live in the proverbial glass house. Of course Japanese trade laws on rice are ridiculous- but the people getting screwed by that are the Japanese consumers. Free Trade benefits consumers - even those too damn dumb to realize Made in America is trite.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

BTW, I am not saying that we shouldn't trade with the rest of the world, just saying that its a con-job on how we are always being held hostage to what is happening in other places like India and China.

Time to make em our parking lot.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

First, didn't mean to dissappear from this thread, but spent the week in North Carolina (fascinating state.)

It is fascinating how you can't fall down without landing in a golf course.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

It is fascinating how you can't fall down without landing in a golf course.

Yes, that is very nice in itself! Also fascinating to me because its becoming a Mecca of sorts for those picking up and leaving states like Michigan in droves. For some reason this has become the state-of-choice for Michiganians wanting out due to both bad weather and bad business climate.