Sovereign Nations and Global Governance

Looking at the front page it occurred to me that most of our "debates" revolve around the dispute between these two things, and if they can co-exist in the modern world.....or where/how they split and divide us.

The EU experiment with Grexit or Brexit looming is just one example. In the US there's dispute about international trade agreements, even NATO. Then there's currency valuations and exchange rates, with the IMF and China....well, you get the idea.

In an era of "globalization", where the the world is getting broader yet smaller at the same time --- what's your comfort zone, and how do you draw those lines?

Too vague? How about this:

When making up your mind about domestic policy and legislation.....how much influence does international policy play in your decision?

It's clear that central banks consider 'globalization' when making monetary policy, international agencies like the UN or NATO have influence over security and immigration policies, the WTO and OPEC impact trade deals, etc.

In this era of massive "institutional mistrust", I'm wondering where people DO place their trust, and why.....

Maybe Trump's speech on "foreign policy" framed the question better than I did! :eek:

In a nutshell, he said the US can only be a good global force if it's strong at home/domestically. I agree with that generally. He also said the US has been carrying most of the load for global peace and/or military actions and nation building, compared to Europe. (Probably true, but what he doesn't acknowledge is that Europe is also taking the brunt of asylum seekers from Africa and the Middle East, fleeing civil wars and terrorism.)

Trump said the US has made policies that favor other nations over our own, which makes us a weaker nation in the long run. Bernie Sanders insinuates the same. But their prescriptions for the cure are very different, because they don't agree on the causes. When anyone disagrees, terms like "Isolationist" or "Nationalist" or "Socialist" are bandied about, and kills any problem-solving. People go to their corners like boxers waiting for the bell to ring, willing to get their brains knocked out, in an attempt to WIN at any cost.

Is that the best we can do? Really?

Saw part of Trump's speech, it actually was a fair bit better than his other ones. That sad reality is that he is massively in favor of protectionist policies, he'll start a trade war and think it is a good thing. Goods and services being less costly is what is good... artificially keeping the price high doesn't help the consumer. I don't get why people don't understand this.

Ultimately manufacturing jobs are going to shrink anyway due to technology eventually - give it a rest already.

The fact that some allies in NATO aren't pulling their fair share is one of his better positions. If they don't want to pay for their own defense they can always leave...

Another loaded term is "protectionist". Is the federal reserve wrong if its policies to "protect" Americans means not raising the interest rate....even though it could help savers?

When did trade deals become sacred cows that can't be re-negotiated? If you're concerned about artificial prices, then you should condemn subsidies for domestic corn, and tariffs for imported sugar.

If you think manufacturing jobs are "ultimately" going to shrink, or move to other countries, maybe it's because you don't think we should invest in vocational/technical training, community colleges, apprentice programs, internships, or skills re-training.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

When did trade deals become sacred cows that can't be re-negotiated? If you're concerned about artificial prices, then you should condemn subsidies for domestic corn, and tariffs for imported sugar.

---

I do. Another reason I like Ted Cruz he said F.U. to the ethanol lobby.

Corn subsidies in the US are a good example of states influencing national policy. (We also have the 'sovereign state' vs 'federal control' battle going on, internally.)

ITT I hoped people would speak to nation vs world dilemmas....and how they decide if/when a certain policy is a good or bad thing. Also, when/how some contingencies should be added in hindsight, when good things go sour. Europe is the best example regarding immigration/refugees, and the US is the best example of military interventions -- both have "blow-back" implications, and unintended consequences that deserve re-evaluation.

When there are problems between nations, I think we have a tendency to look for new agreements/policies, instead of looking at flaws or gaps within existing agreements/policies. Or maybe we continue to use 19th century mindsets when making policies for the 21st century?