Protectionism and the US. What should we do?

[BenRaines]

The thought came to me as I read about some feelings regarding the US involvement in Israel in another thread.

What are you feelings about the US withdrawing all financial support, material support and military support in all parts of the world and letting them all "work it out?"

These are my thoughts.

If we pull out of all parts of the world any financial support, material support, military support, etc. It will not take long before it is all the world against what is left of the United States.

We need allies and allies need us. Together as a whole we are stronger than each on their own. If each are left to themselves another country will come along that is bigger than the others and start chewing them up and taking over. After a time the aggressor will become even bigger than we can fight against and then the whole fight is lost.

It is the total strength of combined countries that keeps the aggressors at bay.

Those are my thoughts. What about the rest of you?

I do understand the prophesied final battles but I am more curious about the immediate or near term results.

Ben Raines

[rameumptom]

The problem is who are our true allies? Just because someone doesn't declare war on us, does not make them our friend, or someone to trust.

There are reasons why George Washington warned us about "entangling alliances", because those alliances brought Europe into war time and again. And it has dragged us a few times into war, as well (WWI, WWII, Vietnam - thanks to the French).

I think the day will come when we will have no choice but to become protectionist again. There will be two major goals in the world: Babylon and Zion, and the two cannot be allies. Babylon will eventually be firmly entrenched in the Old World, and Zion here in the Americas. We won't seek to harm them, and we will trade with them, but being allies will be out of the question. Why? Because their goals will differ from ours. They will want to crush Israel, and we won't want it to happen, but will be unable to directly help them (no forward bases, etc).

The only way we'll be able to rebuild our economy is to let go of "favorite trade nation status" with places like China - which means some forms of protectionism. Otherwise, they will continue to use slave labor to build things that no one else can afford to do at the same price. Quality will go down at least for a time, but there will not be enough people around wanting higher quality items to make much of a difference.

Only when we become more protectionist will we begin to really develop our own energy sources. There's too much big money to be had by a few in drilling elsewhere to stop it in any other way. Manufacturing will not return to the USA without more protectionism. We cannot compete with lower pay, lower safety and environmental standards, and sweat shops.

Free markets can only be accomplished by free peoples and nations. China is neither. Nor, for that matter, is France, which subsidizes most of its companies. And they love terrorists, too. And they hate America.

[refman]

I agree Ben. It's easy for other countries to hate the US, seeing how we're the biggest and best country in the world. It won't be long before multiple countries start ganging up on us. We need allies, if for no other reason than to protect our backsides.

[NeuroTypical]

I'm not wise enough to say the way things should be. I'm probably not even wise enough to know the way things actually are, but I try to come as close as I can.

From what I can tell, it is important that individual nation-states protect their interests on the geopolitical playing field. If they do not, they'll be assimilated into a nation-state that does (if anyone wants them). It may or may not be a visible conquering - the weaker non-player might just become part of the stronger's hegemony, or strongly under their influence.

So, if we are to play the game, it's important that someone understand the rules. From what I can tell, the rules involve entering into and exiting alliances as often as needed, and applying pressure and reacting when pressure is applied. These games are played with economies and people's lives. It is rarely a happy game.

So, if I had to guess why the US has been supporting Israel as long as we have, I'd say it's because it is in our best interests to have stable secular democracies in that troubled and important area of the world who are our friends. I think we hope Iraq will be the next one.

Attention is shifting back to Europe. If you want a heads-up about next decade's headlines, read about what Russia is doing with it's natural gas pipeline cuts to the Ukraine and Europe. And ask yourselves why Germany is making kissy-face with the Russians while the rest of Europe is scrambling to stay warm for the rest of the winter.

LM

Edited January 14, 2009 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[PeterVenkman]

I agree Ben. It's easy for other countries to hate the US, seeing how we're the biggest and best country in the world. It won't be long before multiple countries start ganging up on us. We need allies, if for no other reason than to protect our backsides.

I think people in other countries "hate us" because we have this exact attitude. It is the fact that we believe America is the biggest and best country in the world and that we are the glue that keeps the world together that makes other people angry. Our arrogance causes resentment abroad, and the predominate attitude in our country to just "kill em all and let God sort them out" breeds more enemies by the day. Combine this arrogance with the politics of fear, and you have the beginnings of unintended international violence.

Protectionism is bad. It might have worked at some point before technology progressed to its current state, but, like it or not, I believe we live in a global community and the most productive way to coexist with others is to work together to make the world a better place. We can no longer ignore other people on the globe because we are already too intertwined. Everything we eat, wear, drive and sleep on is produced in other countries. Likewise, our economy survives by sending our products to other countries where they buy our goods. Other forms of support lend credibility to this economic system. In my mind, protectionism simply can't happen anymore.

I believe we should go the opposite direction. We should admit that the era of the modern nation state is over, and enter post-modern global politics. The European Union is a good example of this. We should form an economic alliance with Canada and Mexico, and develop meta-state communities to streamline our inevitable global relations.

[gabelpa]

I agree Ben. It's easy for other countries to hate the US, seeing how we're the biggest and best country in the world. It won't be long before multiple countries start ganging up on us. We need allies, if for no other reason than to protect our backsides.

Biggest, no. Land mass wise, and potential economy wise, no. Untapped raw materials, no. With a few decades worth of change (already happening) China can become an economic and military powerhouse that nothing on it's own can stand against.

Best? That is a subjective measure given the most lenient definition. The Zionistic attitude that it will be the great US of A that will house the great and the good strikes me as isolationist, and dare I say it, racist. Manifest Destiny all over again, except headed up by the extremist Mormons.

There are countries that are better off without US influence and coercion. Others that would implode without it, some by design of the USA. There are some that should have USA involvement and aid that are not receiving it. I can't help but feel that the genocide in the Congo area could have been forcefully prevented with less loss of civilian life had the USA thrown it's military might there instead of into Iraq.

The USA is not self-sufficient in some areas, such as fuel and food. Without trade allies, and friendly allies to help secure these resources, the USA would implode. The manufacturing base doesn't exist in a state that it can survive without imports. Basically, it would take a generation of suffering, poverty, and a sharply negative birth rate before the USA could be self-sufficient.

[lilered]

I have often thought we should withdraw our financial support for those countries that do not support our position on world problems by examination of their vote in the U.N.. Those who tend to support us most of the time, we help, those who vote against us most of the time, cut off support. I would bet that they would change the way they vote if we cut their aid off. Why continue to aid them when they show by their actions they donot support us when we need them too. On the other hand, what good does the money we send them do, if most of it never reaches those we intend it for. We have examples after examples of foreign goverment leaders that continually steal our well intended help from their own people.

[BenRaines]

Peter, your idea sounds like a New World Order concept.

Gabelpa, I go even further back. Why did we go in to Bosnia and not Rwanda? I believe that to have been a racist decision. We had no interest in either conflict but went in to the white one and not the black. 500,000 dead to not help Africa.

Ben Raines

[Moksha]

I think people in other countries "hate us" because we have this exact attitude. It is the fact that we believe America is the biggest and best country in the world and that we are the glue that keeps the world together that makes other people angry. Our arrogance causes resentment abroad, and the predominate attitude in our country to just "kill em all and let God sort them out" breeds more enemies by the day. Combine this arrogance with the politics of fear, and you have the beginnings of unintended international violence.

Yes, we have been wounded by our own arrogance and greed. Seems we need a complete turn about in the way we react with other nations. I was very pleased with all the celebration that went on in Europe, Asia and Africa when Barack Obama was elected president. Good start. Now we need follow through.

I believe we should go the opposite direction. We should admit that the era of the modern nation state is over, and enter post-modern global politics. The European Union is a good example of this. We should form an economic alliance with Canada and Mexico, and develop meta-state communities to streamline our inevitable global relations.

The EU really has been beneficial to the member countries. I think there are too many xenophobic voices here to make a similar idea work.

.

[BenRaines]

I think that one of the flaws of something like the EU has been demonstrated in the most recent financial crisis. They can't come to an agreement on how to handle the financial mess that they are in.

It is sort of like a house being on fire and all the local fire stations are arguing who gets to put it out and who will be in charge.

When this whole financial thing started to hit Europe they were arguing where to hold the meeting to discuss how to attack the crisis. Each country wanting to be seen as the one taking the lead.

Ben Raines

[DigitalShadow]

I think that one of the flaws of something like the EU has been demonstrated in the most recent financial crisis. They can't come to an agreement on how to handle the financial mess that they are in.

It is sort of like a house being on fire and all the local fire stations are arguing who gets to put it out and who will be in charge.

When this whole financial thing started to hit Europe they were arguing where to hold the meeting to discuss how to attack the crisis. Each country wanting to be seen as the one taking the lead.

Any time you get a group of people with different viewpoints and interests together it will be difficult to reach a consensus (you can even see that just within our country), but the decisions that need to be made are starting to have more and more global repercussions. Inevitably if we are to coexist on this planet we need to play nice with other countries.

[BenRaines]

True we need to have friends in other countries but I think it is pollyanna to think that we will get all countries to live in peace and harmony.

Ben Raines

[PeterVenkman]

I think that one of the flaws of something like the EU has been demonstrated in the most recent financial crisis. They can't come to an agreement on how to handle the financial mess that they are in.

It is sort of like a house being on fire and all the local fire stations are arguing who gets to put it out and who will be in charge.

When this whole financial thing started to hit Europe they were arguing where to hold the meeting to discuss how to attack the crisis. Each country wanting to be seen as the one taking the lead.

Ben Raines

As far as a concept for new world order, I don't see it as a fascist concept. Forming meta-state communities is a choice made by each member state. I doubt you would find many people that believe the EU is fascist or totalitarian because it includes many states. Also, I believe this concept exists in opposition to the philosophy of neo-conservatives, who have their own ideas of the new world order.

With regard to the EU being handicapped due to arguments over leadership, this may be a function of the EU being the first of its kind. In early American history, the states argued with one another and struggled for dominance over one another. We enacted laws to prevent such competition and today competition between the 50 states does not seem to be that big of an issue. I believe that, if we implement it the right way, a system like this would work quite well.