We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Anti-globalisation’s long and colourful history When reading about the many and disparate anti-globalisation activists who protest against international trade, one often gets the impression that the writers discussing their antics think that what motivates these folks is a relatively new phenomenon.
Not so. The desire to replace free trade with politically controlled and above all, domestic trade has long been a central aspect of collectivism of all flavours.
Adolf did not much care for global trade either
At its root, all forms of collectivism have more in common than its supporters might be comfortable admitting.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Perry, well said.
I don’t think this is Nazi era. It uses a Prussian Eagle rather than a swastika for a start.
Besides how is a Kaufen Deutsche campaign much different from an “I’m Backing Britain” campaign.
It is a Nazi poster from 1934. And it is no different at all from the “I’m Backing Britain” campaign… which was exactly my point.
Its not generally appreciate that globalization is far from being a new phenomena, and that we have only recently returned to the levels of globalization that occured prior to 1914. In fact, by some measures, such as foreign investment we are still well below the pre-1914 levels. Here is an article from the Economist – http://faculty.insead.fr/fatas/ime/Articles/globalization.htm
A good argument can be made that most of the twentieth century was an aberration away from a fundamental long term trend driven by technological change.
Don’t know, Phil. Perhaps technology has speeded things up, but it hasn’t, in itself, made trade in physical goods or physically supplied services freer. Better communications have actually made life easier for the controllers of all lives in a number of ways.
We are a long way from pre-1914 levels of freedom in the movement of people. Even if I can journey long distances from Britain easily, I have to explain myself and produce permission (in the shape of a passport) even to leave my own country.
Guy: As the technology component in any good or service increases and the cost of its distribution falls, then we tend towards monopolist suppliers or monopoly hotspots where a small number of companies in a narrow geographic area (which may be virtual in this Internet age) produce most of a regions or the worlds supply. Northern Italy and Germany have many examples and not to mention software suppliers.
I deliberately avoided editorializing or offering an explanation. What I think is that governments can no more legislate away the ‘laws’ of economics, than they can the laws of physics. And fundamental economic trends will re-assert themselves irrespective of what governments do (or any individual for that matter). I.e. whether trade is free-er is irrelevant to the long term trend.
Free movement of people is a whole other issue, and one on which I have some insight (he thinks put on my list of things to write a piece on).
Considering how world socialist revolution turned quickly into “socialism in one country” once it turned out that Marx was wrong about which kinds of country were ripe for revolution, it would be interesting to find how much the sources of 20th-century protectionism were socialist, and how much they were a general recoil from the Crash of 1929.
If you think that free foreign trade has entangled your economy in some undesirable international web of influence, you’ll obviously try to push towards self-sufficiency or autarky as did Nazism and Communism, both conspiracy theories.
The aspect of international trade which is not talked about enough is the marvelous job it is doing in accomplishing many of the supposed humanitarian goals of foriegn aid. The history of big governmental projects in the developing world is a sorry mess of graft, bad planning, shoddy design, environmental destruction, and unnecessary or uneconomic construction. Billions of dollars in aid have disappeared into a black hole of bribes, Swiss bank accounts, and all-consuming corruption.
Meanwhile, purely in search of a better profit margin, (as disgusting as that may be to some), numerous businesses from the developed world have relocated certain of their operations to countries where the labor costs and other related impedimentia are less burdensome. The result is that bedrock of development, and the bain of collectivists, the beginnings of a middle class society that has extra income to spend on educating youth, better housing, medical care, etc.
Now, of course, this development is met with howls of protest from various types of collectivists who cannot ever, ever accept the possibility that private business operating purely for motives of added profit can do more for people than well meaning but thoroughly corrupt governmental projects. The workers in these businesses are routinely described as “slaves”, even though they come from hundreds of miles around to get these jobs because the money and benefits are light years ahead of anything available in the impoverished hinterlands where thay had lived.
There is a famous story about former UN ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, who had the temerity to make a speech to the General Assembly requesting a comprehensive investigation of governmental corruption regarding UN and other international aid projects. The speech was met with horrified silence, and then thunderous booing. Those superior moralists at the UN sure could spot a threat when they heard one.