We learned that free trade has costs, and we're adjusting. That's ok too.

bigbadfeline 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> We learned that free trade has costs, and we're adjusting.

I doubt it.

Learning too slow is sometimes worse than not learning at all. During the heyday of globalization I was repeating a single message - this is going too far, too fast, it'll hit a brick wall. Curiously enough that's exactly what I'm repeating these days too - this time about the wild, erratic swing to the side of isolationism.

We're still operating in the same market bubble conditions as before, driven by the same people, for the same reasons - globalization and shmobalization are just means to an end, the means might be different but the end is the same.

▲

betaby 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Indeed. I live in Canada and while USMCA benefited some industries it did not others. Also as a Canadian I suspect the new agreement most likely will be even less beneficial to Canadians.

	▲	gumby 8 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Also as a Canadian I suspect the new agreement most likely will be even less beneficial to Canadians. I think Carney is unlikely to let that happen. Australia’s most recent FTA with the US was lopsided because AUS still had a policy of hoping the US would come to her aid if necessary and so placated the giant, and the GWB administration took advantage of that. These days that’s unlikely to happen because people understand that that era is over and the current government has more spine.
	▲	actionfromafar 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yeah, especially if the deal has "50-something or other state" in it.

▲

g8oz 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's part of a general retreat from the world on the part of the United States.

▲

readthenotes1 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Krugman--often wrong, never in doubt