I'm scanning the headlines this morning, and I see stuff like this, and article rehashing arguments on why the North American Union is paranoia and how the Members of the House working to stop/prevent it might actually be hurting us. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5174989.html Yes, Hunter's amendment slows down foreign investment. But the thing everyone reinforces including that pretty lady who was on the Bill Maher show Friday is that we should all be invested in the stock market, not in traditional business. That corporations matter more than principles. You see, if I'm an average guy I don't really give a flying crap if foreigners can't buy our companies. There was a time when America was it's own biggest investor in the Republic. The scare tactics about (401)k plans hit some, but for the many of us without 401(k)'s, I'd rather make sure that there is no headlong rush (real or imagined) towards a loss of sovereignty than protecting the investing/earning potential of the few near the upper end of the food chain. It's similar to Jim Cramer's argument (Mad Money / Hardball w/ Chris Matthews) last week that GM needs to break the Union to save the company. I agree the Union is a parasite that increases costs everywhere, but saying the Union must be broken, wages reduced to less than half of what they are now in our inflationary economy, so that their share price can go up (his words not mine) really doesn't resonate with many of us who are at best, minor players in the stock market. And at worst, you're like me and you see the effects of globalization on the automotive industry, and how Michigan is reeling in what is only the first stage of illness. We've already spent ourselves into enormous debt, and have allowed a big trade imbalance to occur so that our citizens don't feel the full force of that debt by suppressing the cost of consumer goods. The consequence of that is that the debt has been transferred overseas, to places like China, who I last heard help $1.7 trillion of our debt and were using it to reinvest in America. The problem is, they aren't re-investing in business or our culture. They are buying up American assets, companies and land. There was a time when GM employed the most people in America, today it is Walmart. Many GM lineworkers make $27+ an hour, the average wage at Walmart is under $10. This is the most blatant and obvious sign that things are changing, and maybe it is a bad direction. Maybe you disagree with me, maybe you think I am crazy, that's fine. But from now on, take your time when reading or hearing this stuff, and question the bigger picture than the performance of your portfolio. You can verify what I have written with a little research, if you are so inclined. Btw, in the quote above I like how the author calls it anti-terrorism hysteria. When we defend our assets and sovereignty, it's hysteria. When we go to war for six years to find WMDs or overthrow a dictator, it's a Return on Success. She's missing that foreign investment does erode sovereignty, and for a long time, we were strong enough that foreigners couldn't buy into America because no one would sell. We were too damn successful.
sovereignty is a political notion. globalization is an economic notion you can have more globalization without a loss of sovereignty. you can also have less sovereignty without more globalization. If you think more globalization = less sovereignty; you are just a reactionary and don't really understand the issues too well.
They are intertwined, not mutually exclusive. I'd like some examples of how globalization or sovereignty are separate and do not affect one another please.
free trade means more globalization, opportunity, trade etc; but does not affect your status as an independent nation. you lose sovereignty through treaties that diminish your ability to enforce your government's laws (law of sea treaty, etc). on the contrary, protectionism (see the steel tariffs of 2002) do harm when they are intended to help.
I tend to agree with you in principle. We both (I believe) are fans of true free markets. What about treaties that undermine the wealth of the nation by transferring money to foreign parties? We're big on allowing our market to open up, while some of the investing foreign interests keep their markets relatively closed. In my mind (perhaps incorrectly) that is a one way transfer.