[DaveMcMartin]

It’s genuinely sad to see the world splintering into waves of nationalistic protectionism.

Not long ago, we had something promising, a slow but steady crawl toward a united global community. Progress was gradual, sure, but it was real. Countries could specialize and trade freely: I’d buy your chips, you’d buy my steel, and we’d both come out ahead. It worked.

Now, though, it’s all about "national sovereignty" and "independence" as if going it alone could ever match the strength of interdependence.

The trust we built feels shattered and TBH it’s hard to imagine it being rebuilt anytime soon, if ever.

[dr_kretyn]

Maybe. But, isn't the EU a large collection of countries? Meaning that it isn't about updating the free trade of the West; it's about rejecting the US which turned into a not-a-friend seemingly overnight. As a Canadian and a European, I'm going outside my way to not buy from the US. I used to boycott Nestle but if Canadian Superstore has only Nescafe or something from the US, I'm going for Nestle.

[mlrtime]

Except that friend has been paying to defend off bullies it's entire life with little reciprocity. And when they do, all those friends give them a hard time. The US can't win here, they either meddle too much or "not-a-friend". Meanwhile the US has maxed out it's credit cards and risks paying for it's own bills. Pick one.

[Pet_Ant]

The problem was that the people that benefitted most from free trade never do the work to ensure that a fair share of the profits went to the working class who were now being displaced. If you can no longer get lifelong middleclass job with a high school diploma, but you need a degree, then the degree should be paid for by the state... or you see what you see, a race to the bottom and then a backlash.

[citrin_ru]

Tariffs unlikely would benefit working class either. Benefits likely will be captured mostly by business owners (in protected by tariffs sectors) while everyone will get higher prices (which will hit peoples with low income the most). Manufacturing is more automated nowadays (than it was in the post WW2 era) so it will bring a small number of jobs (copare to the US population) and many of them will require a degree (or certfication).

[pjc50]

The greatest number of people benefiting from free trade in this instance have been Chinese. Within America, the beneficiaries seem to have been farmers - China is a major US export market as well as an import market, people keep forgetting these things have two sides.

[ty6853]

There are plenty of worker owned businesses. If this leads to more worker prosperity then the free market should push workers into them and to form them. They are free to do so, so what gives?

[MichaelZuo]

This seems circular, since there are no credible authorities to decide what is “a fair share” or not, other than the political process in the first place.

(And then only in the ideal perfectly spherical cow world where single issue voters don’t exist…)

[Havoc]

> It’s genuinely sad to see the world splintering into waves of nationalistic protectionism.

And baffling that the country leading the charge on the splintering is the one with most to gain/lose.

Feels like selfharm on scale of brexit

[whatever1]

Turns out capital without borders ruins prices for scarce things (like housing) everywhere.

[mentalgear]

Housing is a fundamental human right.

Corporations should not be allowed to buy or hold large amounts of residential property or zoned housing land. They create artificial scarcity by holding it back, driving up prices purely for profit.

A less direct but still effective approach is to restrict residential property purchases to citizens. This helps prevent international hedge funds and (sovereign) wealth-funds from monopolizing the housing market.

Some of the most affordable housing markets in the world, such as Austria, implement these policies—alongside strong state-led housing initiatives.

[torpfactory]

I’d argue most of the cost of scare housing is supply limits imposed by ridiculous over regulation of new construction. It’s not like we forgot how to build houses and apartments we just aren’t allowed to.

[ty6853]

It's crushing Hong Kong was handed over, as they had about the free-est import/export burdens and regulations in the world. Everyone everywhere wants to kill the golden goose and it's mind boggling that the only people that seem to understand this right now is a few emirates and Singaporean quasi-dictators.

Hoppe might have been right about democracy.

[zwnow]

Nah protectionism is really important. Globalization introduces dependencies and therefor allows countries to easily exploit others. Globalization is not as good as you describe it.

[ruszki]

Does dependency make wars less probable? Genuine question. Logically it should, but I don’t know the numbers.

[diego_moita]

Depends on the perspective.

A "Rules-based world order" has been the rationale of the West for decades: WTO, U.N., free trade, democracy, countries' sovereignty, etc. But this "global community" was lipstick on a pig. From a 3rd World perspective that was just hypocrisy.

The "rules" were always chosen by the rich countries: free trade but keep farm protectionism against 3rd world's cheap produce, sovereignty but not for Palestinians, democracy but not if Chile, Iran or most of Africa or Latin America choose to have socialist leaders (Allende, Mossadegh, etc), ...

And now that even the rules are not advantageous to the rich anymore (e.g.:China's and Mexico's manufacturing, India's and South America's farming) the rich countries are scrapping the rules.

[eCa]

European here.

To be frank, it’s more about the rest of the ”west” updating our list of friendly countries. It is the US that has chosen to take an ever more adversarial position lately, pretty much worsening daily.

The trust among the rest of the west feels like it instead is strengthening. I interpret both ”buy European” and ”buy Canadian” as more of ”don’t buy from USA” with a thin layer of politeness.

[1over137]

There is no such veneer of politeness in Canada. The sentiment is more 'boycott USA'.

[9rx]

> Countries could specialize and trade freely: I’d buy your chips, you’d buy my steel, and we’d both come out ahead. It worked.

It worked until emotions entered the picture. "I don't like making chips. I prefer producing steel. Why do you get to have all the fun?" they've said for decades and with increasing furor.

If you could move freely about the world without any restrictions so that those who enjoy steelmaking could easily move to where the steel is made maybe it would have had a better chance, but even then people generally prioritize location (to be close to family, friends, certain amenities, etc.) above all else so it is likely they would still seek a varied local economy despite the benefits of a global economy.

[robertlagrant]

> "I don't like making chips. I prefer producing steel. Why do you get to have all the fun?" they've said for decades and with increasing furor.

Who says this? TSMC?

[Hikikomori]

Globalism or imperialism 2.0 perpetrated by America? I'd like to see that kind of utopia, but unclear how we can overcome greed, corruption and bad actors.

[wodenokoto]

> "Not long ago, we had something promising, a slow but steady crawl toward a united global community."

How long ago was not long ago in your eyes?

I'd say, the promise of international trade and globalization uniting the world fell apart some time in the 2000 or 2010s with China showing they would not open up to ideas of human rights and personal freedom. The sales pitch for investing in China (from a political point of view) was that we could trade the communism and fascism out of them.

Then in Russia showed that we couldn't trade our way to peace. The idea was that cheap gas from Russia would make Europe and Russia dependent on either side of the deal, and we wouldn't disturb world peace and break the trade. That didn't go well.

And now America wants to but limit trade with their biggest trade partners and closest allies, in the hopes that it'll bring them manufacturing prowess.

My economics professor in 2005, said the world was more globalized in the wake of WWI. I don't know if that was true, but at least they didn't have passports back then.