3 ms·

Fun part is, the USA and some other nations of 1947 realized that free markets needed some kind of "universal arbiter" to curb such shenanigans and brought the

Fun part is, the USA and some other nations of 1947 realized that free markets needed some kind of "universal arbiter" to curb such shenanigans and brought the World Trade Organization (originally GATT, WTO since 1995, not affiliated with the UN) on the way. Most of you probably heard of it. Virtually all the world's nations are voluntary members. Sure, many criticize it for being a tool of the USA and other western nations to browbeat other nations into shape (e.g. China). There is merit to this claim, but obviously it is not so clear-cut. However, it can't be denied that the WTO has been a tremendously useful tool for the USA and its allies to shape world trade. Somehow the 45th president of the USA thought the USA would get the short end of the stick here and started to obstruct WTO proceedings in 2018. The WTO has lost a lot of its influence since then, removing a powerful tool from the USA's arsenal. Make of it what you want.

Amezarak 1y ago
A lot of Americans thought the WTO was a disaster for America. There were violent protests over it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Seattle_WTO_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Seattle_WTO_protests I think this is the root of the disconnect. A lot of people say "wait, Americans wanted X because it's a useful tool for projecting American power" - whether X is the petrodollar, the WTO, free trade, whatever. But largely it was one segment of Americans that wanted and benefited from it.
- amiga386 1y ago
  As a comparison, Maggie Thatcher imported communist Polish coal in the 1980s and just stopped paying British miners. It saved the country a fortune - it got the same quality and amount of coal for far less money - and sent entire segments of the country into a death spiral from which they'd never recover. Similarly, the windfall of finding oil off the coast of Scotland in the 1970s made fat stacks of cash for Britain. Maggie Thatcher did not spend that on deindustrialising Scotland. She did not spend it, like the Norwegians, on a sovereign wealth fund that would benefit everyone in the country. Instead, she spent it on revitalising the old docklands of London, and now they're the epicentre of high finance, where the UK makes most of its money in financial services -- mainly for the people who work in that industry, and the South East of England where they live. These choices ruined the lives of large swathes of the country. But they hugely benefitted the country overall. Were they good choices or not?
- Propelloni 1y ago
  Please, give me some credit. Who assumes that any nation's population, or any sufficiently large group of people, really, is a homogeneous, uniform, or monolithic in their opinions? I certainly don't.
  - Amezarak 1y ago
    Sure, but the point is that a wide spectrum of people, particularly on the left, believed so strongly that WTO was such a net negative for the average American they were willing to violently riot over it. So when we talk about “a useful tool” in the American toolbox, we should keep in mind that tool mostly, or at least has the perception, of benefiting only the rich.

Amezarak 1y ago

A lot of Americans thought the WTO was a disaster for America. There were violent protests over it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Seattle_WTO_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Seattle_WTO_protests I think this is the root of the disconnect. A lot of people say "wait, Americans wanted X because it's a useful tool for projecting American power" - whether X is the petrodollar, the WTO, free trade, whatever. But largely it was one segment of Americans that wanted and benefited from it.

amiga386 1y ago
As a comparison, Maggie Thatcher imported communist Polish coal in the 1980s and just stopped paying British miners. It saved the country a fortune - it got the same quality and amount of coal for far less money - and sent entire segments of the country into a death spiral from which they'd never recover. Similarly, the windfall of finding oil off the coast of Scotland in the 1970s made fat stacks of cash for Britain. Maggie Thatcher did not spend that on deindustrialising Scotland. She did not spend it, like the Norwegians, on a sovereign wealth fund that would benefit everyone in the country. Instead, she spent it on revitalising the old docklands of London, and now they're the epicentre of high finance, where the UK makes most of its money in financial services -- mainly for the people who work in that industry, and the South East of England where they live. These choices ruined the lives of large swathes of the country. But they hugely benefitted the country overall. Were they good choices or not?
Propelloni 1y ago
Please, give me some credit. Who assumes that any nation's population, or any sufficiently large group of people, really, is a homogeneous, uniform, or monolithic in their opinions? I certainly don't.
- Amezarak 1y ago
  Sure, but the point is that a wide spectrum of people, particularly on the left, believed so strongly that WTO was such a net negative for the average American they were willing to violently riot over it. So when we talk about “a useful tool” in the American toolbox, we should keep in mind that tool mostly, or at least has the perception, of benefiting only the rich.