Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pampango

(24,692 posts)
18. I largely agree but I don't think globalization cannot be reversed. I have heard Krugman refer
Fri Apr 24, 2015, 09:31 AM
Apr 2015

to the period before WWI as a "mini-globalization" era with lower tariffs and more trade than in previous eras. Woodrow Wilson had lowered tariffs before the war and vetoed tariffs increases passed by congress after the war.

Republicans Harding, Coolidge and Hoover took the 'globalization' bull by the horns in the 1920's and raised tariffs repeatedly. Other countries responded in kind and trade dropped off dramatically. Essentially the era of 'globalization' had ended through force of political will. Harding, Coolidge and Hoover proved that it could be done. FDR came along and reversed their policies but that is a different story.

It may be more difficult for that to happen now with technology, travel and communications being much different than they were in the 1920. But I would not bet that history cannot repeat itself if the right chain of political events happens.

I wonder what would happen if TPP had existed for 20 years with strong labor and environmental standards and a proposal came along to ditch it in favor of 6 bilateral FTA's with no such standards and to leave trade with the other countries to be governed by the WTO which is not known for such strong standards? Are we resisting change and the inherent unknowns that go with it or taking a stance based on the policy itself.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

too bad. That's the democratic process, Mr. President cali Apr 2015 #1
Making certain the American people don't have a seat at the negotiating table is an affront RiverLover Apr 2015 #11
This is too logical for the knee jerk opponents. DCBob Apr 2015 #2
to you. every opponent is a knee jerk opponent cali Apr 2015 #5
Not all opponents are knee-jek but most are in this case. DCBob Apr 2015 #16
We aren't interested in buying your pig in a poke, Mr President. 99Forever Apr 2015 #3
Good, you ought to and we take it personally that you would push another democracy strangling, job TheKentuckian Apr 2015 #4
"Obama argued it would be illogical for him to sign a trade deal that would hurt middle-class jobs pampango Apr 2015 #6
The criticism is out of date BeyondGeography Apr 2015 #7
no. cali Apr 2015 #8
Agreed. I wonder if he is trying to resurrect FDR's International Trade Organization which went pampango Apr 2015 #10
I think that may be where he is coming from. joshcryer Apr 2015 #14
I largely agree but I don't think globalization cannot be reversed. I have heard Krugman refer pampango Apr 2015 #18
I hope you do take it personally, because I mean it personally. Autumn Apr 2015 #9
I'm surprised he's so defensive. joshcryer Apr 2015 #12
That's not a bad thing gollygee Apr 2015 #13
Taking it personally fadedrose Apr 2015 #15
Oh... THIS is what he takes personally, huh? Help me out here...did he 'take it personally' when Joe AzDar Apr 2015 #17
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama To Democratic Trade...»Reply #18