Globalization: a Counterargument based on Love and the Individual

I have always supported globalization, but with caveats--including that the process from old to new not only consider, but protect the ones left behind.  Furthermore, government spending drives much of the modern economy, and its inefficient allocation of tax revenue has created mega-cities, which are easier to control and influence, but which do not necessarily increase individual or marital happiness.  Such inefficient spending almost forces established politicians to focus on larger cities rather than small ones, creating opposition from newer players in smaller cities who feel left behind and who have little incentive to cooperate with existing players.  Somehow, globalization has made it easier for international megacities to cooperate with each other than larger and smaller cities in the same state or country.

Even with this disconnect, why aren't people in developed economies happier? Part of it must be due to the lessening influence of the individual, and the individual's difficulty in actualizing the power of sincere and selfless contribution as cities grow larger.  Another part is more basic--the difficulty of finding compatible relationships.  I recently watched La La Land (2016)--a wonderfully bittersweet movie based in L.A.--and realized yet another issue with prevailing forces in developed economies: people, especially men, must often choose between careers and love.

Why do I focus on men? I suppose it's because women may not necessarily find true love, but they are rarely alone if they choose not to be.  Men who want to be fathers, on the other hand, seem to have resigned themselves to conforming to a world where their productivity and agreeableness are prized over their own self-discovery and needs.  Other men who see their roles diminishing on all fronts have decided they won't go gently into that good night and have found succor within fringe political groups.  Others just opt out.

In short, the 21st century is in danger of becoming a tragedy by forcing most of the most idealistic people to compromise their ideals to fit in or to find companionship.  Interconnectedness is breeding contempt and dissension as more people realize principles matter less than someone else's overall end goal. When individuals are not supreme--even if right--a sense of decency becomes too readily sacrificed on the altar of reasonableness.  Such compromise, if done by fiat, renders the populace prone to rebellion--first in small ways, then in larger ways that finally become too noticeable for the mainstream to ignore. At that point, as if by design, the disenchanted men and women, the ones left behind by forces outside their control, flee to places where they can feel free--or worse, they stay and withdraw.

In La La Land, the Ryan Gosling character drives away his true love and attempts to get her back, only to lose her again.  He ends up successful but alone.  The Emma Stone character ends up successful and married, but not with her true love.  No one has fled anywhere, but the moral seems to be that large cities force people to choose between being broke and idealistic, or settled and compromised.  If this is a reflection of modern love in America, it's time for a change in the economic system, which requires political changes.

Governments are realizing that happiness might not be easily measured in officially reported data, but tax revenue is often driven by whether people feel as if they can achieve their relationship goals in x rather than y city.  Indeed, taxpayers don't need to leave to new countries to disengage--they can simply move to other areas within the same country, up-ending local economic projections drastically, as so many cities--burdened with debt--depend on sales and other taxes requiring constant economic growth or at least a non-declining working population. Those new high rise condos going up in every major city? Who will buy them from existing and secondary owners without a steady influx of younger workers?

Economic projections, once disturbed, require more debt and thus fewer choices, or pit existing players against younger and newer ones, such as immigrants.  Worse yet, taxpayers who don't leave and who stay in areas that don't reflect their values tend to disengage emotionally from others not within their own groups, decreasing the positive impacts of diversity and dooming efforts to create cohesive communities.  Without community, what is the point of working 60 hour weeks or taking out $50,000 in student loans?

How governments interact with each other will determine whether worldwide prosperity is merely academic well-wishing or the next stage of cultural evolution.  Since it's obvious more ideas result from greater rather than less interaction, my wager's already been placed--as have the bets of trillions of investments and debt.  Democratic governments are quickly learning that if they desire to help their citizenry stay in their current globalized trajectory, they cannot ignore the individual, and they cannot talk down to those who do not share their opinions.   To protect continued migration of people and ideas, the future requires empathy as much as productivity.  Which countries will be up to the challenge?  Which ones will win the battle to create a place where Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone's characters meet, fight, fall in love, and stay together? 

© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (2017)

Bonus: "We are an urban species. Homo urbanis is actively reshaping geopolitics, economics and climate action in the 21st century. And with good reason. While the world’s cities cover just 2% of the earth’s surface, they account for 55% of its population. What’s more, they generate 80% of the world’s GDP and over 90% of its patents. Yet they are also responsible for 75% of all energy consumption and 80% of CO2 emissions." -- from World Economic Forum, Katherine Aguirre from the Igarapé Institute, and others from the Global Parliament of Mayors and C40. 

Blast from the Past, Part 2, on Adversity and Affluence

Here's another letter I just discovered on my old Windows XP laptop--one I just happened to open today, the day after hearing Meryl Streep's comment, "Take your broken heart, make it into art," which she got from Carrie Fisher.  You may not believe me, but the only reason I opened the old, dusty laptop was because I needed an account number, which happened to be in a folder with other files, including multiple letters I had completely forgotten about.  One of them--a mishmash of several letters--is below. I do not remember with whom I was speaking.

Our conversation re: wealth and inheritance got me thinking about why I view wealth, especially inherited wealth, with skepticism, even an inhibitor of creativity and empathy.  It is of course not true that all persons with trust funds spend their days idle or plotting ways to make trouble--JFK is one clear example of that.  Overall, however, it appears creative rich people may be an oxymoron.  The majority of the great authors, thinkers, inventors, athletes, seem to have never been a part of the affluent mainstream.  Everyone from Shakespeare to Mark Twain to Michael Jordan started [without riches]. Now, the question is whether this is just romantic revisionism, or reality.  [Today, artistic endeavors in the "accepted" routes--whether at the Iowa Writers' Workshop or a university drama program--cost significant money, so the landscape has changed. A Lady Gaga may be more likely to come from familial affluence, given the significant upfront investment and time required to break into the entertainment business.] Even so, either result shows that Americans have always prided themselves on the rags-to-riches, bootstraps-pulling story.  The question is, "Why?"

With George W. Bush, for example, we will never know what would have happened had he been born with a different last name. With [Bill] Clinton, on the other hand, Americans seem to have loved him because the story of a man who stood up for his single mom in the face of domestic violence, became a Rhodes scholar, and then went from Arkansas to D.C., is an inspiration.  For whatever reason, people tend to like inspirational stories, something Hollywood knows very well.  Is it possible for someone to come from affluence and still be inspirational? 

It appears that affluence is not the primary guidepost of inspiration, but adversity.  The next question is whether adversity creates inspiration.  I believe it does, because a person who survives adversity has to go through something to succeed and learns lessons from that experience.  So perhaps the more interesting question is, "Does being affluent make it more difficult to be inspirational or creative?"  A new generation of Chinese-Americans may prove this question a simple one as well.

Perhaps being affluent allows one to be shielded from pain or adversity, and therefore halts self-searching.  Years ago, the exercise of self-searching was universally accepted as being important.  Not so long ago, it was clear that all of mankind was capable of heading in the same direction, that the establishment was something to be viewed with caution, that change was powerful, that too much money, especially in the hands of too few people, tended to create disaster, and that working for things like peace and world health and the destruction of nuclear weapons were good things.  Today, with affluence, we are shielded from pain--not only ours, but the pain of others in Africa, dying; of Palestinians in the West Bank, being shot; of refugees in Europe mistreated; and of people in San Jose, California sleeping in their own urine outside of law firms.  In this age of affluence, where Microsoft has billions in cash it doesn't know what to do with, why does it seem that people believe less in world peace, in the common good of mankind, in the idea of food on the table for everyone?

My argument is that this shielding from pain [though I'd now call it challenge rather than pain] has created a world more concerned with materialism than humanity; and as a result, humanity is more easily exterminated, divisions are more likely, and abstract values like community and love are more defenseless as people forget their history and concentrate on protecting their possessions.  Years ago, countries wanted to work towards world peace--witness Woodrow Wilson and the League of Nations and the new U.N.  Today, we have Madeline Albright--a very intelligent liberal--saying that the U.S. embargo against Iraq, which kept out materials necessary for everyday life, such as chlorine (for clean water), was justified, and that the deaths of 200,000+ children was a necessary cost.  We have entered a world where children's lives are simply not viewed with reverence or respect, even as we fight at home for the unborn child.  The 60's gave us songs like "Imagine" that were blockbuster hits--the new millennium's song seems to be a fun, but meaningless, "Must be the Money."  [A song I enjoy but one that should have more competition from more substantial Lennon-style lyrics.]

When one views the hope America had just 40 years ago, and the kind of president America is comfortable with today--one can see the corrosiveness of affluence.  When one realizes that pain not only creates personal growth, but causes people to feel less grounded, and therefore more nomadic, one must realize that it is more likely that a nomadic person will want to learn another language, see the world, read the great works, search for something that will make him grounded--the answer oftentimes being the goodness of humanity, the belief that anyone can rise up and make himself into a better man, and that all life should be viewed with respect.

In the end, there seems to be something intrinsically powerful in a person who knows he has arrived where he has because of going against the grain, not primarily because of what his family is or has given him.  Though such a scenario certainly does not exclude help along the way, hard work and self-exploration carry a certain gravitas that persons with affluence often tend to lack, perhaps because affluence tends to isolate. Such isolation from the problems of the majority usually results in the most harmful poverty--something no amount of money could possibly compensate for.  Dubya will never be viewed with the same kind of respect as Nelson Mandela or Mahatma Ghandi, the latter two people concerned with the fate of humanity globally and who believed that humanity was capable of overcoming its faults.  My argument is that a lack of affluence has something to do with that idealism because it forces an inclusionary rather than exclusionary perspective.  And there is something depressing about a country that just 40 years ago elected JFK, believed in hope and peace, and is now content with Dubya, images of torture under his watch, Muslim attorneys being detained wrongly (Brandon Mayfield), an express policy of war first, questions later (preemptive strike), and outright lies regarding WMDs. 

The 60's were a good time to be an American.  People believed in ideals and ideas, believed that problems, such as hunger, disease, poverty, etc. could be mitigated and should be mitigated with the right amount of time and effort.  We have too many realists today, too many people who fail to realize that empires come and go, that America is only 4% of the world population, is only 200 years old, that humanity itself is a mere drop in the bucket of evolution, and a life spent defending widgets or the people that make them rather than progressive ideas, shall separate mankind from his true purpose of living an examined life, of attempting to help increase the sanctity of human life, and of making loneliness less prevalent. There is a whole realm of possibility for those who were poor and have pulled themselves out of poverty, or who have overcome challenges, whether physical or mental, because those people know what humanity is capable of. Affluent persons may realize these truths, too, but those who have suffered adversity know it as a part of everyday life and cannot ignore it and therefore yearn for greater things.  This is perhaps why adversity has created so much inspiration.  A world where people are less concerned with their fellow man than the price of gas or the balance in their bank accounts is a world that cheapens life, makes divisions between people easier to make, whether black and white or Muslim and Christian, and unsafe, because people, knowing that everyone, in the end, is out for themselves, will act accordingly.

(c) (Matthew) Mehdi Rafat

Blast from the Past

 I just discovered some letters I wrote over 10 years ago--perhaps around 2007.  I'm stunned by how much I've changed, but reviewing my old writings has also allowed me to touch the soul of a man who once had much more optimism than my current self.  Perhaps some good will come of this.  

_____________________________________________________________________________

America’s intelligence operations suffer from too short a horizon; in other words, the CIA and the White House need to view their operations as serious commitments rather than one-night stands.  A cursory view of Near East policies will show that America supported Iran, then Iraq, and then attempted to contain both countries.  In the end, both Iran and Iraq turned against America.  Did it have to be this way? 


The CIA should use officers to form good relations between countries.  Such friendliness, coupled with America’s historic commitment to freedom, will create more “loose lips” than all the agents in the world.  While traveling, I have learned more about a country’s political climate by riding the bus and making friends with students than reading a book or visiting museums.  I have found the most anti-American or anti-Iranian person immediately becomes a wealth of information when confronted with a person who is patient, curious, and balanced.  It is often said that mistresses make the best intelligence officers, because the bedroom creates a relaxed atmosphere.  The CIA should attempt to create a division that focuses on this relaxed atmosphere—in short, a “soft power” intelligence operation.   

The CIA, borne out of USSR-U.S. relations, is now faced with a much more agile enemy, one that uses politics, poverty, and disillusionment as major weapons.  The State Department does not have the CIA’s flexibility and cannot accomplish much on the ground.  If the CIA adapted in such a way as to incorporate “soft power” on the ground, the potential recruits for terrorism would diminish, trickle, and eventually fall away. 

[Sometimes] I am forced to conclude that America’s policy of “money makes might, and might makes right” is immoral and myopic.  The America I once knew, the one where Peter Parker told me “With great power comes great responsibility” [seems] gone forever.  In its place is guilt. 

[Still] I have lived in many countries, and I have always returned home knowing that America is the greatest country in the world.  America, to me, is one vast ee cummings poem—and when I read ee cummings, I cannot pinpoint or analyze why I love him, but I am filled with love and admiration nonetheless.  These feelings exist because of the unique tolerance that America provides its citizens.  As we remember the victims in NYC, let us also remember that the people of countries are distinct and separate from their governments.  Just as we would not want to be associated with the international policies of our government--or most of our politicians--many Middle Eastern citizens and U.S. citizens of Middle Eastern descent do not want to be associated with theirs.  

Bonus, on transparency in investing: I am troubled, however, by just how little clear information is available to the ordinary investor.  With the government distortions and the printing of money, it’s almost impossible to do anything but invest on blind faith when it comes to banks.  I don’t mind the declines in my portfolio as much as the lack of clarity.  Ordinary investors and people would appreciate a clear voice amidst all this financial fog.  

Bonus, on relationships: In my own personal experience, women seem to be endowed with a feature that drives them to identify ambitious men and domesticate them.  However, once domesticated, the men lose the qualities–aggression, greed, sharpness, etc.–that attracted the women in the first place.  While this balancing is great for children, it seems to lead to divorce once the children are grown and can fend for themselves.  This is also why you may have detected an unconscious unwillingness in me to fully relax around you–my subconscious seems to think that if I fully relax around any woman, I will lose the very skills that allow me to survive.  Since survival is my primary goal, it seems I’ve set up a paradigm where my brain has relegated me to single status if I also want to be ambitious and financially successful.  

This is one of the strange paradoxes of life in a big city–achieving the simple things actually hurt you in a dog-eat-dog world when trying to maximize your potential.  I am going to try to figure out how to resolve this paradox.  So far, I can only think about moving to a small city, which doesn’t seem to be a reasonable solution.

(c) Matthew Rafat

Tea and Trade

Tonight, I walked into a small Indian or Pakistani-owned grocery store and had a epiphany about globalization. Seeing an entire row of teas of superior quality that most Americans will never see made me realize that despite much increased trade, actual diversity of products hasn't reached the average consumer.  And that's just the teas--a very simple product.

In short, adult voters in developed countries are suffering from twin headwinds: 1) they see traditional manufacturing jobs lose ground to services-based and technology jobs--without having the educational or training opportunities to enter those faster-growing sectors; and 2) they do not see sufficiently tangible benefits of allowing competition from foreign countries, especially in countries with lower living costs (which allow for lower wages).

The result of globalization should be more choices and labor mobility, not just lower prices.  Right now, most consumers have the illusion of choice because a few major companies own most media and the tangible products they use.  To take one example, Disney owns not just ABC, but Nickelodeon and ESPN--as well as Pixar.  The reason such consolidation has occurred isn't just lax anti-trust enforcement and IPO monies, but the complexity of trade agreements, tariffs, and other impediments to "free" trade.  Media consolidation is particularly troubling because it means a small group of companies can influence your consumer choices based on whether they highlight x product rather than y product under a system driven not by quality but by whomever can pay the highest ad dollar.  Basically, the current advertising system generates greater demand and recognition for a few companies, which then influences shelf space in retail outlets, which then creates self-reinforcing product "choices" based on a very narrow set of influencers.

Moreover, large companies have legal teams that can comply with increasingly complex regulations purportedly designed to help the public but that disadvantage smaller competitors who lack the consistent revenue or access to the corporate loan market to fund legal teams that can expertly find loopholes or survive prolonged litigation.  In other words, laws, once they become complex and costly to defend, hurt the consumer by reducing competition and therefore consumer choice.  They also divert revenue to "outsiders" (lawyers, insurance companies, etc.) without any improvement for the consumer.  (I've advocated that most civil laws with private rights of action, except for harassment, should not apply to companies with fewer than x employees or less than x gross revenue, but that's a post for another time. Criminal laws, of course, would still apply, such as fraud.)

In the current era of so-called "free trade," a small grocery store--using eBay, Alibaba, or personal contacts--may have more food diversity than a Walmart or Kroger's in terms of the origin of their products but may need to pay a much higher share of revenue to insurance companies to prevent bankruptcy due to chance events, without any guarantee that the policy will cover the specific event feared; or choose to operate in the informal economy; or hire only close friends and family.  This is not what globalization promised.  It was not supposed to restrict labor choices while enriching the investor and lawyer classes at the expense of the worker class and rendering the government impotent and feckless.  It was not supposed to cause government employees to create separate and unequal disciplinary and compensation systems while increasing taxes to pay for guaranteed benefits unavailable to private sector workers.  It certainly was not supposed to promote an educational-governmental complex designed to trick voters into forking over more tax dollars to sustain a K-12 system that fails to impart any practical or critical-thinking skills.

The challenge now is to figure out how to use globalization and laws to increase labor mobility and truly diverse choices without using government power to coerce outcomes or pick winners and losers. Thus far, voters outside large cities can sense that the promises of globalization "as is" will require them to accept more debt, more inflation in essential items, less accountability, and more dependence on elites.  As such, they are rationally skeptical of their changing environment and the politicians who fail to address such issues head-on.

By failing to openly acknowledge globalization's current problems, politicians of all stripes are promoting dystopia and endangering the concept of democratic rule.  As a strong supporter of globalization, I fear its tendency towards "sameness" (i.e., shopping malls and high rise condos everywhere) but have never questioned its promise: a world where we can experience other cultures and ideas in ways never before possible.  If done properly, greater connectivity and technology could bring the end of war, famine, and disease--but only if done in ways that promote stability (such as a universal basic income), accountability, and tangible benefits to the average consumer.  

Unified Theorem

Many philosophers better than I have walked this earth.  I don't have any illusions that I can add substantively to the greats before me, but I have been able to travel more than they have, so perhaps others may discover a few diamonds in the sand of my thoughts.

Unified Theorem

Part 1

All issues originate first from personal relationships, which permeate outwards to form societal structures and norms. Consequently, how men and women interact together form the quality of life we create. We are somewhat restricted by gender roles and sexual norms, but all personal relationships seek a natural release and maximizing endorphins, which requires compatibility and then sustained effort to maintain such emotions as they experience an inevitable decline.

Opposites attract in terms of the willingness to confront others against harm (i.e., styles of protecting each other and complementing regular gaps or inefficiencies), but goals and quality of life preferences must be aligned in the same bandwidth to lessen substantive conflicts. From these everyday interactions, which build or reduce goodwill among individuals (and thus increase or decrease the likelihood of empathy), we can create economic rules to maximize chances and opportunities to think long-term and seek happiness.

The key is not to let economic rules dictate societal structures, but to bend economics to society's will. To do that, to perform such dismal alchemy, one must first understand economics and what not to do, for the most correct path often lies in not taking the wrong one. 

On Trade Agreements, or Lack Thereof

How to commit cultural and financial suicide in 5 easy steps:

1) fail to prioritize relationships in SE Asia, which has the fastest growing economies in the world and a large consumer population;

2) have a consumer-driven economy that relies on foreign purchasers because your own population is only 5% of the world's and then fail to offer SE Asia favorable economic terms in exchange for greater access to its markets;

3) have a foreign policy that deliberately antagonizes over 1 billion potential consumers of a specific religion, which has over 100 million adherents in another fast-growing economy critical to your country's economic and political strategies;

4) rely on (mostly unaudited) military expenditures to project influence worldwide and to create vocational opportunities rather than relying on soft power and making such vocational opportunities available to all your K-14 attendees; and

5) underfund state and federal safety net programs, forcing reliance on borrowed monies from the very countries to which you have ceded economic expansion in SE Asia and other fast-growing economic areas.

If you're a young 'un, remember that you can get access to Hollywood movies and American products almost everywhere in the world but in a safer or more vibrant environment. Learn another language. Turn off your TV. Watch foreign films. Learn about supply chains, maritime issues, neuroscience, IP property right enforcement, water/food security, and outsourcing. The money is in Asia and the Middle East, and, except for Canada, Australia, and Germany, the future is outside the "West" for now. (Published Dec 2016.)

Is the New World Order Here Yet? (Book Review)

Written after the 2008-2009 financial crisis, Jerome Corsi strikes an appropriately skeptical tone towards globalization in America for Sale (2009, hardcover) (updated?): "What is left challenged by globalists is the possibility that globalism itself may be inherently flawed.  The world economy is moving to a leveled labor market in which a government and business elite will be the only winners... It should be clear... that globalism has not worked... What all Americans must understand is that global governance will end up destroying the very American nation-state our Founding Fathers intended to create for us to pass on to future generations."

Corsi--who seems similar to Lou Dobbs--fairly summarizes other influential thinkers' views, such as Joseph Stiglitz, who believes globalization has failed because it has operated without sufficient protection for developing countries; however, Corsi's own ideas have several issues:

1.  When America was exporting its own values and products all over the world and imposing its influence worldwide, Americans did not complain about globalization. Quite the contrary--American writers proudly proclaimed the 21st century the era of "soft power."  Now that other countries are gaining sufficient power and influence to export their images and perspectives to other countries, suddenly Americans are unsure of globalization. America seems hypocritical and small for taking such a view rather than seeking to compete on its merits.

2.  Corsi assumes that international governance necessarily requires a loss of sovereignty.  Yet, he never considers that it's worth giving up a small or measured loss of sovereignty to gain a substantial benefit, especially when so much of American innovation and prosperity come from its multinational corporations, which make most of their money overseas.

3.  Corsi assumes that all international governance mechanisms will harm American values; however, if American values are superior, why wouldn't they prevail in negotiations and other economic "battles"?  Corsi writes that in "a world economy, the United States was valued as a consumer country, not as a producer, manufacturer, or exporter." (pp. 162) There is no reason such a scenario must always be true.  With the appropriate level of tax credits and proper negotiations, the U.S. could produce (and export) whatever it likes.  Thus far, however, its tax incentives have failed to be on par with China's, creating predictable consequences.

When America's major source of innovation comes from military R&D, it's no wonder countries like Japan have been more innovative than America with respect to quality-of-life matters and domestic infrastructure.  Of course spending to kill will result in entertainment-oriented and consumer applications rather than constructive ones.  Ships and aircraft carriers don't have too many transferable uses in a landlocked domestic economy other than supply chain advantages (logistics), which benefit transporting consumer goods worldwide, not making everyday life easier for residents.  Innovation is different when it seeks to control and monitor populations in unknown or rural areas compared to when it seeks to make life more efficient in densely populated cities.  America once again looks small when it complains about trade deficits while creating budgeting incentives that guarantee them.

4.  Corsi correctly identifies America's relatively high wages as an impediment to eliminating trade deficits.  However, he once again fails to address them in a concrete or constructive way, assuming always that negotiations cannot resolve such issues.  Even if we assume that wages in America will stagnate over x number of years, there are ways to negotiate against artificial financial manipulation, such as devaluation in other countries' currencies.  One way would be to increase tariffs only one way by x percent relative to any devaluation.  (That one I got off the top of my head, so you can see that an almost infinite number of ways exist to balance trade in ways that force countries to compete based on quality or merits rather than price or labor costs.)

Another example would be the granting of x dollars to the country or corporation whose products are being copied due to lax copyright or IP enforcement.   The real problem is how to calculate such penalties and how to encourage domestic IP enforcement without resorting to lengthy or expensive litigation, and Corsi offers no solutions here.  Corsi and other protectionists lament the idea of international tribunals, but their whole point is to protect companies from having to litigate in other countries' "home courts," where they would be at a disadvantage due to language and cultural barriers, even if using local counsel.  The fact that international tribunals are slow or clunky is no reason to stop globalization.  A hardy people would seek to reform court systems or to implement better oversight, not to give up substantive economic activity due to slow lawyers and ill-prepared judges.  No one argues we shouldn't have the Olympics because some referees make terrible decisions.

5.  Corsi is fantastic when it comes to evaluating and explaining other economists' positions, but his own haven't stood the test of time.  Chapter 7 is titled, "The Plan to Destroy the Dollar."  From pp. 186: "Regional currencies like the euro are merely stepping-stones on the path to the Holy Grail of a one-world currency."

About a decade later, the US dollar and the Japanese yen are the world's strongest currencies, and the euro has been in steady decline.  This is one example of Corsi's narrow academic focus.

Here's another, from pp. 211: "Ironically, the United States may be approaching an era where it will be impossible to buy a U.S.-manufactured auto, or an era marked by a global economy in which the only manufacturers that survive will be the multi-national corporations with car-manufacturing capacity in China, aimed at taking China's low-cost labor markets."  Last time I checked, not only do Ford and GM make cars in the southern U.S., but even Volkswagen and other foreign car companies make cars in the U.S.

One more, from pp. 228: "Avoid Investing in Stocks and Bonds."  Since the publication of Corsi's book, both stocks and bonds have increased substantially.

6.  I did not see any substantive opinions on the state of American K-12 education, which is an interesting omission to the extent the quality of one's education matters as workers compete not just domestically but worldwide.

Corsi would benefit from adding a review of actual terms and conditions of the trade agreements he complains about, but the first half of his book is fantastic because it so clearly lays out many of the issues we face today. 

© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (2016)

Bonus:

Jill Stein supporters are generally smarter than other party supporters but they still don't realize their positions are effectively the same as Donald Trump's, but in different ways. 

Extreme liberals don't want to build a physical wall but they want to stop the free flow of global capital and development or restrict them so thoroughly, it's almost the same in the end. 

Her: "NAFTA costs American jobs, including good management jobs, and allows companies like Ford to take advantage of fewer regulations in other countries. It also reduces tariffs, hurting some industries like agriculture." 

Me: "I like poor people. I have no problem with a corporation helping them in other countries. The problem with the loss of manufacturing jobs isn't NAFTA--it's our own gov's failure to invest in retraining or other higher skilled work programs, along with extended unemployment benefits for displaced workers." 

Her: "But these companies destroy domestic competition when they move, like Walmart destroys mom and pop shops." 

Me: "You have not said how specifically, but if you're arguing Walmart pays better wages or makes products more cheaply than the competition, why is that a problem? Why shouldn't Venezuelans and Mexicans have better access to higher paying jobs and cheaper products? No one is forcing people to take those jobs, so the pay is probably much better than domestic companies. 

I agree working conditions must be monitored, but just because the level of legal protection isn't the same as here doesn't necessarily mean they're being taken advantage of." 

Her: "Over time, the competition destroys domestic industries and smaller businesses in other countries." 

Me: "But if GDP increases over time, then both countries benefit as industries are modernized and newer technologies are introduced to workers and residents who would not otherwise gain access to those advancements without corporate investment." 

Her: "The TPP allows corps to sue entire countries." 

Me: "Yes, because if the country confiscates corp assets, there needs to be a way for the company to protect itself. You have a billion dollars. Would you invest it in Venezuela without legal protection?"

Her: "The money shouldn't be there in the first place." 

Me: "So screw the poor people in Venezuela who would otherwise have greater access to jobs." 

Her: "You're raising your voice. This discussion is over."