5 ms·

> What if it actually came to that? If push came to shove and the interior decided to push a nativist, nationalist agenda, what if the coastal regions that bene

by nvarsj 10y ago

> What if it actually came to that? If push came to shove and the interior decided to push a nativist, nationalist agenda, what if the coastal regions that benefit significantly from trade were to say "Okay, you guys can play with yourself, we're going to play with the rest of the world." I think if it actually came to that, it would eventually mean war. The interior economy falls apart, coastal regions secede, the poor countries would inevitably be driven to war against the coastal regions out of desperation. Extreme nationalism would just make this more likely. No one should think this is a good idea. Also, saying coasts are "well-integrated into the world economy", implying the rest of the country is not, is just a horribly myopic view of the world. They are only "well-integrated" because the government chose and planned that explicitly - globalization and free trade as an economic policy, removal of protectionism (e.g. NAFTA, etc) and heavy subsidies of the industries involved (especially tech, via military spending). It didn't have to be that way - it isn't because tech, finance, whatever is more meritocratic or anything. With more sensible protectionism you could have international trade while still preserving your country's manufacturing base, allowing the rest of the country's economy to also be "well-integrated". But labor is expensive in developed countries, corporations want more profit, and our government doesn't particularly prioritize the working class.

berserkpi 10y ago
Here is an opinion of a Mexican guy. I remember back in the day when Mexican president Carlos Salinas promoted the NAFTA deal as a solution to our problems. I started to disagree when reason came to me (I was too young when it happened), few reasons: - I believed in a more protectionist system that encouraged internal growth. I still do to a point. - Trading is good as long as you don't compromise internal production and employment. NAFTA is way too aggressive in this sense. - It will triggered this bad "us-american?" behavior of consumerism and materialism. Well, here we are 22 years after and it's evident the system got exhausted, even for US-Americans who were supposed to be the strong link in this chain. Is killing NAFTA a good idea? maybe. I don't know. We are so deep into these waters that it has to be a small "chunk by chunk" change, and even so, it'll be chaos. What I am sure we need, is to find a new balance, going all protectionist will be a huge mistake, just like this crazy aggressive neoliberalism that allowed companies behave irresponsible. Believe me, the consequences of this 20+ years trade system in Mexico are massive. Wait, I'm not a pro-Trump crazy Mexican, keep reading. As I said, we need a new balance. To my eyes, Trump is an extremist and a dangerous man, he doesn't sound or act like a guy that could bring this balance. I think USA voters made a huge mistake on electing him. But, at the same time, they had 2 very poor choices. They just chose the worst one. The years to come will be interesting ones... that is given.
nostrademons 10y ago
I'm explicitly avoiding the question of whether this is a good idea and considering only whether it's a plausible idea. In other words, predictions, not plans. I actually think a major war in the next decade is very likely, and no, I'm certainly not looking forward to it, but I'm very curious as to what it would look like if it did. So leaving morality and emotions out of it - why does globalization seem to disproportionately benefit the coasts? I don't buy the "because the government chose and planned that explicitly" - the laws and treaties they write affect all citizens equally. Obviously there are going to be some winners and some losers, but how did it come to be that the winners are disproportionately concentrated in certain geographic locations? There's plenty of military spending and military bases that go into Montana and Wyoming, and much of it is quite high-tech (that's where the nuclear arsenal, is after all), but you haven't seen Silicon Mountain spring up. What's different? And if we answer that, how can we replicate that in many places so that we don't see so much political blowback because a large segment of America is left out of the prosperity that globalization has brought elsewhere?
- Goladus 10y ago
  So leaving morality and emotions out of it - why does globalization seem to disproportionately benefit the coasts? Coasts are where most of the cities are. As for where globalization benefits? This question is somewhat oversimplified. There are two factors: the culture/demographic side and the economic side. That is, globalization has economic winners and losers AND cultural consequences. Obviously there are going to be some winners and some losers, but how did it come to be that the winners are disproportionately concentrated in certain geographic locations? You might better ask, why did certain geographic locations win? The people have changed. One of the key requirements of globalization is the free movement of labor. Jobs move to where the labor is and labor goes to where the jobs are. A small town has no future when it loses its only factory to Mexico while all its brightest youths go to Silicon Valley and New York City to work in IT, Media, and big Finance and spend lots of time getting drunk and having sex. Once that happens, the small towns left behind either manage to pivot into tourism or an exburban haven for telecommuters, or they just die a long, slow death; kept on life support by Wal Mart while Meth labs and Mexican heroin ravage their communities. One other important thing to look at, as far as people's attitudes go, is the pace of change and the nature of the change. If a local factory failed because they failed to compete with foreign competition, that would inspire people to figure out a better way to compete. Everyone fails together or succeeds together. But when a local factory is shut down because the owners have decided to cash in on globalization, people are more likely to be upset and feel betrayed and look to government for help.
qb45 10y ago
> I think if it actually came to that, it would eventually mean war. The interior economy falls apart, coastal regions secede, the poor countries would inevitably be driven to war against the coastal regions out of desperation. Extreme nationalism would just make this more likely. No one should think this is a good idea. There is also a matter of food supply. There is a sentiment among rural people in my area (not US) that it's them who are doing actually important work for little pay while the cities waste time and money on bureaucracy and pursuit of fads.
- moyta 10y ago
  Don't we give them massive subsidies? I ask since I know my family back east in Iowa does get a ton of federal money for farming, which was what inevitably ended up destroying farming in Mexico, where it isn't heavily subsidized and thus can't hit anywhere near the same price point per bushel.
  - qb45 10y ago
    > my family back east in Iowa does get a ton of federal money for farming, which was what inevitably ended up destroying farming in Mexico And this is why liberal- and capitalistic-minded farmers despise EU subsidies. You have to take them to be competitive, but in order to get them you have to do what Brussels wants you to do. They set quotas on how much of particular goods particular countries are allowed to produce, subsidize regions they think are "important" or "disprivileged" or whatever. And if they feel like funding something else instead of you today, you are uncompetitive and screwed.
    - moyta 10y ago
      Don't get me wrong, some funding is neccesary like paying farmers to let their land lay fallow for a year so it may regain nitrogen & nutrients, and quotas have helped us avoid food insecurity, but the current system needs broad reform, to make a run of it as a farmer in the US today you need at least 500+ acres, which wasn't the case 50 years ago.

by nvarsj 10y ago

berserkpi 10y ago

Here is an opinion of a Mexican guy. I remember back in the day when Mexican president Carlos Salinas promoted the NAFTA deal as a solution to our problems. I started to disagree when reason came to me (I was too young when it happened), few reasons: - I believed in a more protectionist system that encouraged internal growth. I still do to a point. - Trading is good as long as you don't compromise internal production and employment. NAFTA is way too aggressive in this sense. - It will triggered this bad "us-american?" behavior of consumerism and materialism. Well, here we are 22 years after and it's evident the system got exhausted, even for US-Americans who were supposed to be the strong link in this chain. Is killing NAFTA a good idea? maybe. I don't know. We are so deep into these waters that it has to be a small "chunk by chunk" change, and even so, it'll be chaos. What I am sure we need, is to find a new balance, going all protectionist will be a huge mistake, just like this crazy aggressive neoliberalism that allowed companies behave irresponsible. Believe me, the consequences of this 20+ years trade system in Mexico are massive. Wait, I'm not a pro-Trump crazy Mexican, keep reading. As I said, we need a new balance. To my eyes, Trump is an extremist and a dangerous man, he doesn't sound or act like a guy that could bring this balance. I think USA voters made a huge mistake on electing him. But, at the same time, they had 2 very poor choices. They just chose the worst one. The years to come will be interesting ones... that is given.

nostrademons 10y ago

I'm explicitly avoiding the question of whether this is a good idea and considering only whether it's a plausible idea. In other words, predictions, not plans. I actually think a major war in the next decade is very likely, and no, I'm certainly not looking forward to it, but I'm very curious as to what it would look like if it did. So leaving morality and emotions out of it - why does globalization seem to disproportionately benefit the coasts? I don't buy the "because the government chose and planned that explicitly" - the laws and treaties they write affect all citizens equally. Obviously there are going to be some winners and some losers, but how did it come to be that the winners are disproportionately concentrated in certain geographic locations? There's plenty of military spending and military bases that go into Montana and Wyoming, and much of it is quite high-tech (that's where the nuclear arsenal, is after all), but you haven't seen Silicon Mountain spring up. What's different? And if we answer that, how can we replicate that in many places so that we don't see so much political blowback because a large segment of America is left out of the prosperity that globalization has brought elsewhere?

Goladus 10y ago
So leaving morality and emotions out of it - why does globalization seem to disproportionately benefit the coasts? Coasts are where most of the cities are. As for where globalization benefits? This question is somewhat oversimplified. There are two factors: the culture/demographic side and the economic side. That is, globalization has economic winners and losers AND cultural consequences. Obviously there are going to be some winners and some losers, but how did it come to be that the winners are disproportionately concentrated in certain geographic locations? You might better ask, why did certain geographic locations win? The people have changed. One of the key requirements of globalization is the free movement of labor. Jobs move to where the labor is and labor goes to where the jobs are. A small town has no future when it loses its only factory to Mexico while all its brightest youths go to Silicon Valley and New York City to work in IT, Media, and big Finance and spend lots of time getting drunk and having sex. Once that happens, the small towns left behind either manage to pivot into tourism or an exburban haven for telecommuters, or they just die a long, slow death; kept on life support by Wal Mart while Meth labs and Mexican heroin ravage their communities. One other important thing to look at, as far as people's attitudes go, is the pace of change and the nature of the change. If a local factory failed because they failed to compete with foreign competition, that would inspire people to figure out a better way to compete. Everyone fails together or succeeds together. But when a local factory is shut down because the owners have decided to cash in on globalization, people are more likely to be upset and feel betrayed and look to government for help.

qb45 10y ago

> I think if it actually came to that, it would eventually mean war. The interior economy falls apart, coastal regions secede, the poor countries would inevitably be driven to war against the coastal regions out of desperation. Extreme nationalism would just make this more likely. No one should think this is a good idea. There is also a matter of food supply. There is a sentiment among rural people in my area (not US) that it's them who are doing actually important work for little pay while the cities waste time and money on bureaucracy and pursuit of fads.

moyta 10y ago
Don't we give them massive subsidies? I ask since I know my family back east in Iowa does get a ton of federal money for farming, which was what inevitably ended up destroying farming in Mexico, where it isn't heavily subsidized and thus can't hit anywhere near the same price point per bushel.
- qb45 10y ago
  > my family back east in Iowa does get a ton of federal money for farming, which was what inevitably ended up destroying farming in Mexico And this is why liberal- and capitalistic-minded farmers despise EU subsidies. You have to take them to be competitive, but in order to get them you have to do what Brussels wants you to do. They set quotas on how much of particular goods particular countries are allowed to produce, subsidize regions they think are "important" or "disprivileged" or whatever. And if they feel like funding something else instead of you today, you are uncompetitive and screwed.
  - moyta 10y ago
    Don't get me wrong, some funding is neccesary like paying farmers to let their land lay fallow for a year so it may regain nitrogen & nutrients, and quotas have helped us avoid food insecurity, but the current system needs broad reform, to make a run of it as a farmer in the US today you need at least 500+ acres, which wasn't the case 50 years ago.