Thursday, August 15, 2019

Imperialism, Economics and Globalization


They will be assimilated: Resistance is futile

USA Boom or Bust: The Next Decade


Screw the Banks

Third World Wages Coming to a Factory or Workshop Near You


Ronald Coase on the Nature of the Firm: Are economists clueless, or what?



The Globalist Lies of the New York Times: No. 47 — Trashing Trump With Free Trade Bunk




  1. The myth is that globalization is synonymous for free trade. It can be, but in our case the countries that have best profited from our form of Globalization (think China, Germany, etc.) are those that have actively practiced protectionism. We have to get back to a system where companies compete globally in a free market based on the quality and pricing of their products and not based on the ability of their governments to rig the markets in their favour (not just with duties, but with other mercantilist practices such as quotas, unfair regulation, currency manipulation, etc..) .

    1. Proponents of free trade seek the removal of tariffs or other restraints on trade that conduce to their own detriment.

      Globalism, as a movement for global free trade, is promoted both by countries, inasmuch as they stand to gain from it — for example low-wage countries seeking access to markets of high-wage countries, and by global corporations seeking to maximize profits by locating production where costs (particularly wages, and compliance with health, safety and environmental protection laws) are lowest, while selling tariff-free in markets where mark-ups are highest — think Apple making cell phones in low-wage Asian countries and selling them tariff-free in high-wage US and Europe.

      Neither grounds for free trade serve the interests of all or even most countries, which means that the push for globalization is fundamentally anti-democratic, seeking as it does, to deny democratic nations the right to control trade according to the interests of their own population.

      So the idea that free trade or globalization are inherently good is absurd. A genuinely democratic country will promote or restrict free movement of goods, technology and people across its borders as serves the interests of its own people, not according to the impact of policy on other countries or the the returns to shareholders of global corporations.