It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wouldn't A More Isolationist Stance Benefit The People of the US & Why Aren't We Adopting One?

page: 1
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 10:32 PM
link   
I've been asking myself why it is that the United States doesn't adopt a more isolationist stance/policy, particularly in regards to manufacturing and trade. To me, the failure to do so, is a betrayal of the people of the United States by the politicians that claim to represent us.

Doesn't it make sense that in a global economy there will be a leveling out of standards of living? Now if that's the case, sure it would be great for people currently experiencing a lower standard, but doesn't that mean that people currently living under a relatively higher standard, the US for example, are going to see a decrease in their standard of living, (And haven't they already?)

Why would restricting imports and forcing the manufacture of more goods internally be a net deficit for the average person in the US? What would be wrong with incrementally restricting imports until our unemployment rate and wages stabilized at a level that preserves the standard of living of the average American? Sure the cost of certain goods would increase, but so would wages and employment. Right?

To me this is a no brainer.

Where am I wrong? What is it that I don't understand?




posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   
That is a very good question and one I ask myself all the time. The only thing I can think is that a reduction in our standard of living is what "they" want for some reason. It's the simplest thing in the world: We, as in the US gov't, don't have any money to spend and yet we still spend like we're gonna hit the lottery or something. It doesn't make any sense to me but what do I know?



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TheConspiracyPages
 





Where am I wrong? What is it that I don't understand?


I think you are mostly right, but the word you are looking for is probably 'protectionist', not isolationist.

From the end of the civil war until the end of World War 2, we had protectionist policies, such as tariffs, to encourage development of industries in the US. These policies are not always effective, and can be corrupted, but if you look at the leading economic countries of the last 200 years, england, US, Germany, Japan, Korea, China... all have used various protectionist tricks and strategies to go from being agrarian backwaters to leaders in industry, science, and education.

Unfortunately, the accepted wisdom of the day calls for 'free trade', which in practice means that americans in manufacturing work have to compete with potential employees in third world countries working in slavery like conditions, of course, doctors, lawyers and other politically powerful groups are sheltered from such competition. Those who advocate free trade also typically advocate open borders, in order to put US construction workers and others in competition with migrant workers.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 10:55 PM
link   
We don't really need an isolationist stance we just need A. Stop being imperialistic and close up some of our 700 or so foreign military installations and B. Adopt some commonsense tax laws such as no tax breaks when corporations ship their manufacturing overseas. C. Stop spying on every world leader on earth and our own citizens?



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TheConspiracyPages
 


The real answer is they want to lower the US standard of living. DC has wrecked our manufacturing base just as they planned. Most of the DC crew are globalists they don't believe in nationalism or the betterment of the American people.

From Nancy Pelosi:

losing that 40-hour work week will really free Americans to “pursue your happiness … follow your passion.” link

Now why would she really think having a part time job is a good thing?

A leftist think tank in DC is now arguing that we should work less, which means we will produce less and consume less energy. But that means we will earn less, and therefore consume less.

In other words, they are openly asserting that we should all endure lower living standards. link



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TheConspiracyPages
 


Bassago is right.

The global agenda obviously believes in degrading specific groups in order to upgrade others.

They must think it would take too long to upgrade by other means.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 11:18 PM
link   
So hypothetically what would happen if we required USA companies to pay USA/identical wages to their workers in foreign call centers and manufacturing? I don't think there would be a way to do it but...imagine a world where Microsoft call centers in India paid as much as they would here. You'd have an instant middle class there with money to burn, jumpstarting the economy there, then imagine Apple factories in China paying as much as they would have to here and on and on and on. What would be the fall out? Just a thought.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 11:21 PM
link   


Wouldn't A More Isolationist Stance Benefit The People of the US & Why Aren't We Adopting One?


People need to be careful what they wish for. Be advised if the US withdrew from the world stage, not a bad idea on the surface, but this is what is going to happen.

There would be a power vacuum created either filled by Russia, or China, or world Islamo fascist's.

Most people would be like AWESOME!.

Considering dwindling resources that are becoming scarce by the day, and the build up of other countries militaries, and their modernization.

Sooner or later, an impasse will come in to play.

That will make the last 60 years look like amateur hour. Manufacturing decline in this country, has in my opinion been the driving factor in increased actions abroad.

We have long,long supply lines. That do need protected, and they are.

What ever way it is not going to be what people think it will be cracked up to be if we do withdraw.

As to why we don't well Americans love to buy cheap stuff, and it's cheaper because it is made 10,000 miles away.

edit on 2-2-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



I think in a world where nuclear, biological and chemical weapons exist, a strict isolationist policy is problematic and I'm not advocating that.

But I don't see a benefit to the American people in a policy of full engagement in a global economy.

I also understand that we use economics to pressure and manipulate other governments, ostensibly to our benefit, rather than for purely altruistic motives. But I'm not convinced that it is to our benefit. I certainly don't believe that it garner's us much respect on the international stage.

It's nice to help people, but I think we're giving away the house.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Non-interventionism is generally more politically and morally acceptable than isolationism. Isolationism leads to xenophobia, ignorance, and a world reminiscent of the one in 1984 (e.g. "We have always been at war with Eastasia").

That being said, the only way the US will ever become isolationist or non-interventionist, is if the current regime and all their minions are removed from power. There is too much money in being the sole super power.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by 0x16f
 


I don't see us being the sole super power though. Though weaker and lesser than us, I think China and Russia should still be considered super powers. Maybe France, England and Germany as well. I think we need to define super power.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Nobody remembers the Smoot- Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 from high school Social Studie's class?
Everybody was out of class that day?

That's what the globalist's will throw in your face - i don't buy it. Think all these free trade agreements do is degrade our way of life - see NAFTA, GAT etc...


Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by amazing
 




but...imagine a world where Microsoft call centers in India paid as much as they would here.


This is exactly why MS moved their call centers out of the US in the first place. To China first and when that cost more than they wanted to pay to India. I'm not speculating on this either, it came right from the horses mouth.

Wage increases / parity won't work as long as the corporations are in the business of making money at any(ones) cost. It's also why FoxConn in China is looking to expand outside of China, either to India or (get this) the US. Labor costs.
ATS Thread FoxConn



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by amazing
 
Super power, in the context I am using it, is the ability to wage a war at any point on the earth, at any time, due to the bases we have in the area or surrounding areas.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 12:05 AM
link   
It is the multinational corporations that lobbied for overseas production. And now that they have it how on earth do expect them to give it back? Corporations will argue that bringing production back to the US where costs are much higher will hurt profits and shareholders causing further collapse. It is a damned if you do or don't situation any way you look at it.

Free market capitalism does not work... Unless you are trying to consolidate all the power and resources into a tight circle and set a match to the rest.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 12:05 AM
link   

0x16f
reply to post by amazing
 
Super power, in the context I am using it, is the ability to wage a war at any point on the earth, at any time, due to the bases we have in the area or surrounding areas.



I would change that to influence. How much influence do these countries have. I realize that China would have huge logistical problems. I believe they could nuke anyone but I think they be hard pressed to invade, even Taiwan.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by BABYBULL24
 


I wonder if the difference in trade deficits between that time and now would change the effect. I also noticed that the tariffs were placed on something like 20,000 items. I think that would be overkill. The US would have to tool up to manufacture more products here. I'm advocating a more incremental and strategic movement.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by 0x16f
 





Non-interventionism is generally more politically and morally acceptable than isolationism.


I couldn't care less about political correctness.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Begin producing DURABLE goods cars you can repair by modularizations made of metal so they LAST. Rebuild infrastructure and industrial creation. Nation wide rails again.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by TheConspiracyPages
 
Unfortunately the rest of the world does. Not so much about being PC, as it is about being realistic.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join