I support free trade but am going to push back on this narrative a little. I'd go back to Kissinger and China, the end of gold reserve to the start of this story. Globalization was/will happen. The UN in all it's muddled forms is a necessary organization to settle disputes. If we are to recognize each other's humanity and cooperate on gl…
I support free trade but am going to push back on this narrative a little. I'd go back to Kissinger and China, the end of gold reserve to the start of this story. Globalization was/will happen. The UN in all it's muddled forms is a necessary organization to settle disputes. If we are to recognize each other's humanity and cooperate on global issues sharing the same planet. Possible going beyond that. I was a teenager during the first Mulroney/Bush agreement. The world had an utterly different set of ideals of what abundance, progress, technological advancement meant. The internet, global real time information was a fantasy. Free trade at the time was leverage from the dominant party to poorer nations, with strings of debt relief. That isn't free trade or real globalization in the spirit of the libertarian idea is it? It could have meant energy abundance, a green transition then. Greed/power gets in the way. The coalescence of a millions of choices that sets nations on a given path.
My argument that globalization/free trade in the 80s-90s were with more strings tethering all partners to stories that now no longer tell the full story of the present of possible futures.
Naive as always. What is the point in seeing the world any other way. :-D
I support free trade but am going to push back on this narrative a little. I'd go back to Kissinger and China, the end of gold reserve to the start of this story. Globalization was/will happen. The UN in all it's muddled forms is a necessary organization to settle disputes. If we are to recognize each other's humanity and cooperate on global issues sharing the same planet. Possible going beyond that. I was a teenager during the first Mulroney/Bush agreement. The world had an utterly different set of ideals of what abundance, progress, technological advancement meant. The internet, global real time information was a fantasy. Free trade at the time was leverage from the dominant party to poorer nations, with strings of debt relief. That isn't free trade or real globalization in the spirit of the libertarian idea is it? It could have meant energy abundance, a green transition then. Greed/power gets in the way. The coalescence of a millions of choices that sets nations on a given path.
My argument that globalization/free trade in the 80s-90s were with more strings tethering all partners to stories that now no longer tell the full story of the present of possible futures.
Naive as always. What is the point in seeing the world any other way. :-D