Chances of a new American isolationist movement?

Post Reply New Topic

This article and its comments have me wondering if a new isolationist movement might trigger if the media covers increasing globalist trends in the American economy? That is to say what do you think of the chances that a new isolationist movement is likely if the risks of foreign interests effecting the American economy was covered extensively by the media. Yes i know the slant of yahoo's audience or at least the ones that comment most often,

There's certainly a tendency to blame globalization for America's lack of competitiveness in certain sectors of the economy, rather than taking responsibility for our own faults.

It's quite possible that Bernanke has already fired the first shots in what will become a major global trade war with his latest round of monetary easing, given negative reactions from around the world:

http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the ... _the_world

What faults would those be? Also hasn't the whole print lotsa money thing been tried before? If I remember right it didn't end well. Although the strategy seems sound I really don't want to see china bitching about this though, weakening their dollar is something they do as routine maintenance. And how do you think a global trade war would go, for those involved that is?(national level)

Isolationism would be the absolute worst thing for our current economy...and I mean that for everyone. It'd leave most of us penniless and without a means of survival rather less an ability to properly express our views in a democracy.

At least, with the end of exceptionalism maybe the people of the United States will realize that they are not that much different after all.

We can always hope such a movement develops. We have to do something to put an end to the "forever war".


ruveyn

A complete discussion probably belongs in another thread, but two factors are (1) an "entitlement mentality" among many Americans today, especially younger ones, who seem to expect everything to be handed to them on a silver platter, and (2) tax and regulatory laws that encourage that mentality and discourage productive use of labor.


You're absolutely correct. It was tried in the 1930s and 1970s, stretching out the Great Depression for 10 years in the former and causing a decade of "stagflation" in the latter.


Don't get me wrong - just because I think it may be starting to happen doesn't mean I think it would be a good thing at all. In fact, I agree with skafather84 that isolationism would be the absolute worst thing for our current economy. Part of what happened in the 1930s was that the "print lotsa money" thing was accompanied by growing isolationism. Bernanke is making exactly the same mistake, and if we aren't careful, we'll get exactly the same outcome.

By the way, China has been gradually appreciating their currency for some time now, at a rate that would have eliminated any imbalance in a year or two. However, since their currency is tied to the dollar, Bernanke's efforts end up cheapening the Chinese currency, negating their efforts to bring it into line.


We don't have to be isolationist to reduce our military presence in Afghanistan. All that takes is a sensible defense policy.

I think it has potential of happening.

1. I know they tried to tell me in school that the Great Depression was caused by isolationist policies. I know that's a lie...it was triggered by currency manipulation.

2. Without trade tariffs, there is no way we can have a "global" economy and maintain any standard of living in the USA. Global means just that...dirt poor nations do better, rich nations do worse. The goal is to put everyone on a level field, and there is not enough "wealth" (although you can create wealth) to make everyone as well-off as the USA at its height.

The best way for America to get it's house in order is to stop putting our noses into everyone else's business...at least where there is no clear and present danger to our way of life. We need to invest what money we have to spend on fixing what's wrong here, not solving everyone else's problems.

Prove it.

Since you can create wealth, as you admit, globalization need not mean that rich nations do worse, even when poor nations do better.

For example, freer trade between the then relatively rich U.S. and the then poor western Europe in the decades following World War II indeed helped European economics improve rapidly. However the U.S. didn't "do worse"; instead, the trade helped us improve our economy too, albeit less rapidly.

The same thing is happening now, except the Europe is part of the "rich" nations now, and the "poor" developing nations are in Asia and South America. Globalization benefits us both, boosting our standard of living by allowing us to take advantage of cheaper labor than is available here and letting us focus on things that take advantage of our better educated labor force, while giving them access to capital that they would not otherwise have. It allows the more efficient production of wealth and helps everyone.

I think you mean "protectionism", not "isolationism".

"Isolationism" means withdrawing from involvement in foriegn affairs- both militarily and diplomatically.
"Protectionism" is economic, it means being hostile to foreign trade and blocking imports to protect your country's jobs.
The latter might well be a trend. Not necessarily a good one.

I will point out that if we were actively involved on the world stage during the 1930s, World War II probably would have been over a lot sooner. Germany did not have the ability to attack the United States militarily.

Then again I think Pearl Harbor actually may have been what cost the Axis the war, because it enraged the American people, we were producing equipment, planes, ships, at a pace that till that point was considered impossible. If we had gotten involved earlier the politicians may have been half-hearted about it.

Well yes i suppose that would fit better, but i would prefer the first one. I mean we shouldn't interfere with foreign interests unless someone requests our help.