3 ms·

> Perhaps globalisation isn't international cooperation as much as international action I'm not sure what kind of cooperation has a more positive impact than e

by woodman 11y ago

> Perhaps globalisation isn't international cooperation as much as international action I'm not sure what kind of cooperation has a more positive impact than economic. It brings peace and prosperity. > Clinton brought NAFTA to the US, Obama is trying to implement the TPP. NAFTA was Bush Sr. The GOP has a lot of reasons to resist the TPP, but the main beef seems to be the executive branch's attempt at role reversal in the crafting of legislation. > I will point out that you are talking about economic issues... All politics are local, and nothing weighs move heavily on the minds of voters than an empty stomach.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> NAFTA was Bush Sr. NAFTA was negotiated under George H. W. Bush, but passed (by Congress) during (and with the support of and active lobby by) the Clinton administration. > The GOP has a lot of reasons to resist the TPP, but the main beef seems to be the executive branch's attempt at role reversal in the crafting of legislation. The GOP (including as recently as this year) has supported what you characterize as this "role reversal", through legislation on fast track negotiating authority and trade promotion authority.
hackuser 11y ago
>> Perhaps globalisation isn't international cooperation as much as international action > I'm not sure what kind of cooperation has a more positive impact than economic. It brings peace and prosperity. I agree that economic cooperation brings peace and prosperity (speaking very generally). My point is that many see globalization not as cooperation but as an economic assault. There's a long history of it: Back in the 19th century at least, trade "agreements" with weaker countries were often signed under threat of military action. In the early 20th century, the US military protected US corporate investments in the Americas. The U.S. overthrew Iran's government in the 1950s when they threatened to take control of their own oil industry. Many trade deals long have been considered to be one-sided, benefitting only a few narrow interests in the U.S. I'm not advocating that side, only making the case that they have a strong reason to doubt that globalization is cooperative.

by woodman 11y ago

dragonwriter 11y ago

> NAFTA was Bush Sr. NAFTA was negotiated under George H. W. Bush, but passed (by Congress) during (and with the support of and active lobby by) the Clinton administration. > The GOP has a lot of reasons to resist the TPP, but the main beef seems to be the executive branch's attempt at role reversal in the crafting of legislation. The GOP (including as recently as this year) has supported what you characterize as this "role reversal", through legislation on fast track negotiating authority and trade promotion authority.

hackuser 11y ago

>> Perhaps globalisation isn't international cooperation as much as international action > I'm not sure what kind of cooperation has a more positive impact than economic. It brings peace and prosperity. I agree that economic cooperation brings peace and prosperity (speaking very generally). My point is that many see globalization not as cooperation but as an economic assault. There's a long history of it: Back in the 19th century at least, trade "agreements" with weaker countries were often signed under threat of military action. In the early 20th century, the US military protected US corporate investments in the Americas. The U.S. overthrew Iran's government in the 1950s when they threatened to take control of their own oil industry. Many trade deals long have been considered to be one-sided, benefitting only a few narrow interests in the U.S. I'm not advocating that side, only making the case that they have a strong reason to doubt that globalization is cooperative.