‘The World Needs Globalization, It Needs Trade’
By Daily Bell Staff - February 05, 2017

 ‘If trade stops, war starts’ Alibaba founder who visited Donald Trump warns .. ‘The world needs globalisation, it needs trade’  …   Jack Ma met US President Donald Trump last month and announced his company would help create one million jobs in the US. -The Independent

The question is whether Alibaba founder wants to implement trade by force or voluntarily. He doesn’t say it outright, but if he could he would probably want government to pass laws to push markets in the direction he wishes they would go.

Jack Ma would naturally tend in this direction given that he has grown up in a society that utilizes force to create the fairness of which he speaks.


The CEO of China’s biggest online retailer has warned that “if trade stops, war starts”.  Jack Ma, who met US President Donald Trump last month and announced his company Alibaba would help create one million jobs in the United States, added: “The world needs globalisation, it needs trade”.

‘But worry doesn’t solve the problem,” he added, Business Insider Australia reports. “The only thing you can do is get involved and actively prove that trade helps people to communicate. We should have fair, transparent and inclusive trade.”

He also said that if trade stops, war starts. But again he did not make clear how he wishes for trade to continue and expand. A voluntary expansion of trade would be a great thing. Involuntary trade, not.

While we don’t know the details of Ma’s business in China and abroad, we would tend to believe that as China’s largest retailer, Alibaba is intimately tied up with the state itself.

Ma is therefore speaking at least partially for the state when he asks for trade that is fair, transparent and inclusive.

But trade is not always fair, and indeed fairness may be in the eye of the beholder. Trade does not have to be transparent or inclusive either.

Trump recently helped kill the TTP trade agreement, It was the subject of Trump’s first executive order and confirmed the nation’s withdrawal. This was a trade agreement to be signed by nine separate counties including the US. But Trump and many others didn’t find much in it that was very good.

In fact, Trump is not going to sign anymore of these bilateral deals that are quite hard to abrogate. Instead, he will “negotiate fair bilateral trade deals that bring jobs and industry back”. 

PPT is not the only trade deal Trump is helping to rip up. He also hopes to rip up or at least redo Nafta, another bilateral trade  deal, this one with Mexico and Canada. Nafta removed many jobs from the US and sent them to Mexico, where they could be done for less.

Ma added: “We have to actively prove that trade helps people to communicate.” But if Ma wants to force a certain kind of trade on people by making laws that mandate certain kinds of trading that’s probably not a good idea.

Conclusion: As much as possible trading should be done between individual parties themselves, uninfluenced by outside factors.

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!


Your $50 Ticket to the “$100 Billion Pot Stock Bonanza”

The $100 billion marijuana industry is dominated by penny stocks…

With legalization sweeping the country, these penny stocks have already begun skyrocketing in price…

Take action TODAY, and you have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to turn a tiny $50 investment into an absolute fortune.

Click here to find out how.

Biggest Currency Reboot in 100 Years?
In less than 3 months, the biggest reboot to the U.S. dollar in 100 years could sweep America.
It has to do with a quiet potential government agreement you’ve never heard about.

Tagged with:
  • gomurr

    Forced trade is not free trade.

    • Pedestrian

      Of course it isn’t. The term is an oxymoron. Trade implies voluntary exchange to obtain mutual benefit. Forced trade is simply looting. The Chinese understand this very well, having been forced to trade Chinese silver for British opium after the Opium Wars in the 1800’s.

  • Do you think maybe Jack Ma’s perspective is just a tad biased/self-serving?

  • FreeYourMindinSC

    Seems to me a question worth asking is whether the sort of free trade Bastiat had in mind, & which libertarians / Austrians have in mind, can even exist in the present real world environment: in the West, leviathan corporations dominate & have governments in their pockets. Their billionaire CEOs define “free trade” as the freedom to do as they please no matter who, & how many, get stepped on as a result. In China, to all appearances, it’s just the opposite. Although China *does* have a central bank, making one wonder where the locus of power really is.

    • Leopardpm

      yes, it can exist… and since the Free Market actually is just the result of humans interacting, it DOES exist now and always will. But the benefits of the market are greatly reduced by the amount of force put towards it (by government).

      When people (including me) typically say things like, “We do not have a Free Market” – what is meant is that the market is not ‘free’ from interference – it is ‘working’, exactly as it should be, but laboring in and around various regulations and policies imposed on human trade by government.

      So, I would say that the question really becomes, “Can the Market, if left alone to its own devices, provide people with the same services and protections that w feel that government provides us?”… for most folks, they fear the market, imagine that it needs ‘taming’ by something greater than the people in the market. I ‘might’ agree in some particular areas, but, on the whole, most of what government does is either undesired or more efficiently handled in the market itself.

      Regarding giant multi-national corporations… how much ‘power’ would they have if they could not influence government towards their whims? Remember, it is ONLY government that can ‘legitimately’ murder, steal, make war, and plunder… the purely corporate version of those things is on a much smaller scale and held in check by its consumers.

      • FreeYourMindinSC

        Meant to reply to this long ago, but life sometimes gets in one’s way, lol. Besides, a substantive response seemed called for, & that takes time.

        At first glance, much of this seems unexceptional. Once, long ago, I used many of these same arguments myself. What changed? Well, the first thing I noticed was that Libertarians can be as rigid & closed to the wrong sorts of speech as PC Leftists if one asks the wrong questions. As one of the excommunicated, I know of what I speak.

        What I hit upon was the difference between trade conducted by you & me, assuming we are ordinary peons of limited means, & trade conducted by billionaires CEOs atop global corporate leviathans, some of which control more assets than entire countries. My working assumption here seems to me fairly obvious: our actions affect others. Since trade is an action, trades affect others. Trade conducted by me & thee affects only ourselves & perhaps our families. Trade conducted by billionaire CEOs (or those answering to them) may affect a population of millions. While the latter may have been voluntary, the millions who may find themselves unemployed because of it did not sign off on the trade. They cannot be said to have become involved voluntarily.

        It might be worth noting, moreover, that the billionaires had no interest whatsoever in a “non-aggression principle” or other abstractions, including “the free market” itself. They just want to make money, & if you’re one of the people who gets stepped on in the process, oh well, sucks to be you.

        So that was the difference. One of us is arguing from a standpoint of global abstractions; the other, from concrete & local realities (all reality is, in the final analysis, particular, specific, local).

        In other words, “Can the Market, if left alone to its own devices, provide people with the same services and protections that w feel that government provides us?” is a purely hypothetical question. There can be no good answer to it outside one’s political-economic ideology. Among the things I’ve given up is the idea that these are decided “rationally,” i.e., with logic. Most people are creatures of habit who prefer a world of familiarity & stability. No one is going to socially engineer that out of them … not the Left with its obsessions with “diversity” & not free market absolutists with their “creative destruction” of globalization.

        Donald Trump, I think, gets this intuitively, in his “gut” (where else, as he’s an empiricist & not a systematic thinker). All “deplorables” also get it in their “guts,” i.e., it hasn’t been “educated” out of them. It’s not hard to spell things out, if that’s desirable. The reasons globally-minded billionaire CEOs like free trade, free migration / open borders, etc., is that they get richer & stay richer, having created a specific global political economy that automatically drives down wages by relocating jobs to cheap-labor countries &, of course, simultaneously drives up profits. It also destroys the quality of what is produced, as everyone buying Chinese-made “goods” & seeing them begin to disintegrate in six weeks or less sees for themselves — as opposed to the made-in-the-USA quality goods that preceded the globalization era & may have been pricier but lasted for years. It becomes regrettable that “always low prices, always” becomes all that the services-sector employed inhabitants of a de-industrialized wasteland can afford.

        Free market absolutists seem not to see all this. They seem to be intellectuals without what Nassim Taleb calls “skin in the game”: many in well-funded think tanks, not attempting to survive on Main Street, & almost by definition tied into abstractions & longing for certainty. This sounds ad hominem, I know, but I often now suspect they defend the stances they defend because so many depend on these very billionaire donors to fund their think tanks & sometimes their (admittedly rare) “chairs of free enterprise” in universities. Since my excommunication I have tried to explain to the anarcho-whatevers I keep encountering (1) the utter impossibility of eliminating the state from the equation, implied in abstract arguments about “how much ‘power’ would [multi national leviathan corporations] have if they could not influence government towards their whims …”; eliminating the state is, in fact, asking to believe in magic, not reality, if for no other reason than the masses aren’t about to let you do it; America’s political class is not even going to “privatize” social security & Medicare because it would be career suicide & they know it. (2) Even were such magical thinking possible — we could just snap our fingers & the state would be gone — the billionaires would simply reinvent it by creating well-bankrolled surrogates in the various geographical territories they controlled by economic means (so-called property rights over the land & resources they’ve been strip-mining for most of the past century) that served the same purpose. Whether we called the results a “state” or not is arguing semantics.

        What we need to free our minds from is economism, the idea that “what serves or helps the economy” ought to be the basis of all practical public decision-making, i.e., cultural & other matters can be relegated to the sidelines if they are noticed at all. From free market absolutism, it seems we can infer that we (i.e., us “deplorables,” etc.) ought to allow the outsourcing of the last job from the last factory in America, or allow robots or other high-tech gadgets to throw millions more human beings out of work, or allow the influx of a million more immigrants who can’t speak English, just so long as productivity ticks up, the “official” unemployment rate can be held down (because so many people have dropped out of the “labor force”) & the “numbers” keep moving in the “right” direction “proving” that globalization is the right thing to do. Again, if you’re laid off, the message of the free market absolutist is to quit whining, upgrade your skills, “monetize yourself,” etc.

        When was this kind of system, which (if there were any*) would have intelligent Marxists drooling, ever voted on? Not during my lifetime! Who has embraced it “voluntarily”? No one I know of outside handfuls of cloistered (& often well-salaried) intellectuals in think thanks who don’t have to live with the real world consequences of their thinking, any more than the billionaires who fund them have to live with the consequences of their decisions as they jet off to the next Davos meeting.

        Aristotle, a hero to at least some libertarians, seemed to believe that in a community with a healthy political-economy, the richest citizens ought to have no more than *five times* the property, assets, etc., of the poorest. Now such images of society as Aristotle draws here might be as unrealistic in today’s world as that of a world where “the free market” as understood by absolutists reigns supreme. But is it necessary, or healthy, for the globe’s richest .0001% (a group that would fit easily in a high school auditorium with room to spare) to be worth more than the entire bottom half of the world’s population put together? Especially given that many (most?) of this richest .0001% (1) did not actually *earn* their wealth through *productive work* but through speculation & moving money around electronically; & (2) are not using it to actually *improve the human condition* by creating the kind of super-abundance that could end forever the dependence of the masses on money & render obsolete discussions of “universal basic income”; rather, they are using it to get richer & increase their power through, e.g., global trade deals. These allow them to continue strip-mining countries’ resources (often subordinating their masses to brutal dictatorships to quell unrest). Their “end game” is NOT a totally free market, which in principle would allow us to opt out of mass-consumptivism if that is our choice, but a global state that will make corporate billionaire dominance literally impossible to fight, while the lower & middle classes of the world sink progressively deeper into poverty.

        Just making observations & asking questions, the sort that free market absolutists don’t like.

        “I didn’t say it would be easy, Neo. All I said is that it would be the truth.” ~Morpheus, *The Matrix*

        *The Left, sadly, also abandoned the real world at least three decades ago for their idiocy of identity-politics (“diversity is our striength” & crap like that). But that’s a different post.

  • Alan

    The main thing is that China desperately needs American consumers to buy much of their exported goods. America desperately needs to put people back to work. Trump is understands these dynamics so hopefully this is the beginning of a 2-way deal that benefits both nations.

    • Leopardpm

      If Trump truly understood trade and jobs, he would obliterate all tariffs and trades restrictions unilaterally with every other nation (except maybe those we currently have sanctions against). The fact that he endorses tariffs and only infringements on the american citizens means one of two things: he does not understand economics, or, he believes in crony capitalism…. either of which is not good for the american people.

      The problem with people unemployed has absolutely NOTHING to do with trade or ‘outsourcing’ or even automation. The problem is with the regulations and governmental systems (Unemployment insurance program) which encourage (to the point of actually paying them!) folks to be unemployed and hinder innovation and re-employment.

      Just re-read my post and I wanted to clarify something. When I say, “The problem with people unemployed has absolutely NOTHING to do with trade or ‘outsourcing’ or even automation.”, I am not saying that these things do not cause labor to need to be re-allocated (directed elsewhere) – thus temporarily increasing unemployment (called frictional unemployment as people are between jobs) – but the problem is with systemic unemployment…. the issues which are hampering folks from becoming re-employed. Losing one’s job is just part and parcel in participating in a dynamic, free market economy, due to changing whims and desires as well as due to competition. So, we should ALL expect to lose our jobs and perhaps take that into account in our planning and saving. We should learn multiple skillsets, continually improve and upgrade our skills, and look forward and attempt to predict which directions the market might desire our labor in the future. A dynamic labor force would tend to be unemployed for very little time and could easily respond to market changes. For instance, auto manufacturing. In the past, these jobs have been highly valued and provided high wages… but, now these jobs are much lower paying and not a lot of labor is demanded. These jobs are NEVER coming back. An autoworker who took a portion of his money earned and re-invested it in himself by learning other trades, or saved it to perhaps startup a new company when he eventually lost his autoworker job… that person will probably fare much better than the one thinking his job will continue forever, or that he can ‘protect’ his prized job from competition through advocating for trade barriers and other subsidies from the government.

      There are indeed an unlimited amount of jobs, so trade or foreign workers or automation will never be able to take ALL of the jobs. But, they will be able to make some jobs not require human labor which means that folks who presently have those jobs should best be prepared to do something else. It is the way of the world, and it is a good thing because we all benefit from the labor savings, progress. Soon, we have have to expend very little labor to lead very opulent lifestyles… compare the average person today to 200 years ago, how much labor do they each expend to survive? What are the luxuries available to them? Did the person 200 years ago even have the option to retire? And, progress is speeding up… it will not take 200 years to see the same difference, rather 10 or 20 years from now will witness the same difference between now and 200 years ago. (I said that awkwardly) We might be living as kings with robots doting on our every whim and to pay for this lifestyle we might have to ‘labor’ an hour per day, perhaps being creative in some manner, or providing some ‘human preferred’ or ‘human required’ service.

      • Alan

        Your points are well taken, however, Trump doesn’t have the power to remove all of the many years of regulations and obstacles to free trade. I see him as taking the first steps towards getting back to a limited government with limited restrictions on free trade and regulations. The country desperately needs jobs and it’s not clear whether we’ll ever get to a truly free market system. My biggest reason for supporting Trump is that he’s taking on the leftist media and culture so that people can actually start having the kind of discussions we’re having here without being labeled as right wing extremists or worse.

        • Leopardpm

          You have more faith in Trump than I. But then again, I have no way of how billionaires routinely interact in business dealings and the games they play – it could all be a negotiating tactic as far as I know. BUT, he does strike me as insanely populist – what I mean is that he says things the people want to ‘hear’, even if those things are incorrect or wrong… I hope he doesn’t follow through with his ideas on trade.

          for instance, your statement, ” The country desperately needs jobs”…
          it builds on several assumptions which are incorrect: (1) That ‘jobs’ is some sort of goal, when it is just ONE method of obtaining a goal. If we could obtain Goods and Services without expending labor, then we would not need jobs, right? (2) The reason for our unemployment is due to some sort of ‘lack of jobs’ – untrue, the reason is due to inability of labor to move into the areas of the economy which are demanding it, (3) The reason for our ‘lack of jobs’ is because they were ‘stolen’ or ‘taken’ (ie: through trade and outsourcing) – untrue, both trade and outsourcing just rearrange what jobs the economy desires with the benefit of improved standard of living on the net.

          This would be all very easy for a politician to lay out simply for the common man to understand, but, it does not fit into a sound bite nor does it pull on the emotional & nationalistic heartstrings. Trump capitalizes on these two things for popularity… hence populist, and that is not a good thing for the country as a whole.

  • windsor1

    Ma wants globalization on the terms and direction that it is currently headed. That is a world in which China has all the mfg. jobs and exports products to consuming nations like the US. This is not a sustainable business model.
    Manufacturing jobs in the past were well paying. This is no longer the case as the American worker is being displaced by automation and competition from 3rd world nations where there are no employee benefits, pension plans, pollution requirements, unions, health benefits, pensions, litigation etc. With no barriers to trade and the ability to manufacture in low tax jurisdictions, what incentive is there for a corporation to produce anything in the USA?
    Robots and automation enables companies to render millions of workers redundant. It enables corporations to use a competitive worldwide workplace to squeeze wages and maximize profits like never before.
    In addition rather than have manufacturing facilities in several different countries serving several different markets, global trade agreements allow even greater efficiencies by consolidating mega plants where costs are lowest. This makes even greater numbers of workers redundant.
    To this add the economic reality that there are limits to growth and the world has reached these limits. How many plasma screens does a house need. To forestall the inevitable zero growth scenario the globalists have created easy credit, low rates and generous social benefits. The jobless collect benefits which they can use to lever consumption by tapping further into credit, pay off a little debt and max out the cards. The reality ultimately is that US hourly wages must fall to the level of Chinese wages. Bubba is unaware of this unfortunate reality.
    The beneficiaries of this spending spree with cheap money are large corporations and governments. The governments get the day of reckoning down the road and the corporations can sell more “stuff”. It enables the worker in the USA to trade in his alarm clock for an Obama phone. Jack Ma is one of those guys who is well positioned to make hay while the sun shines. He has technology, easy money and a borderless world all working in his favor.
    For the time being there is still a modicum of faith in the world of fiat money. People still perceive it as carrying some value and that value is the trust people have in it and nothing more. In the past pre-Nixon era the dollar was backed by gold. This is no longer the case. The combined debt of all nations is over 300% of global GDP.
    Because the banking system, corporate system and government and the consumer are all buried in debt, the entire world financial system is at the edge of an abyss.
    Guys like Jack Ma have helped squeeze the system to the point where there is no more juice in the lemon. Jack wants to stay at the global punch bowl while the party continues. The folks at the top are living large and life is good. They are the “me, me, me” crowd.
    Things are not so good for the masses at the bottom of the pyramid. They are swimming in debt and have a hard time staying on the merry go round. The guy at the top is getting richer and the guy at the bottom is getting less and less. Never before have income disparities been so great.
    The ultimate reality is that the realization that there are simply too many people on the planet to produce all the things that we need. There is no real growth and the world economy is at a point of stagnation.
    The globalists see non renewable resources as there property. They resent the rest of us consuming them. The see that we have reached the limits of growth and want to seriously cull the human population. Too many idle, unemployed people could create massive social upheaval that the elites can not control. A massive cull of the population would eliminate this risk.
    This is why the US is probing in Romania, Poland, the Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, Iran, the S. China Sea, the S. Korean border with N. Korea. Any one of these hot spots could under the proper circumstances erupt into a world war. Where will you be? Most likely in a target zone. Where will Jack Ma be? Likely in a shelter far away from the falling bombs hoping to emerge from the holocaust at the top of the food chain with the other leading globalists and politicians.
    Being a globalist like Jack Ma in an unfair world is sweet; being a pleb sucks big time.

    • Praetor

      China sells junk. With competition and quality they can be beat. Robots and their use of near slave labor is why their products are inferior. China should be focusing on increasing their middle class.!!!!

      • Leopardpm

        China sells a variety of things, at a variety of quality. The point isn’t if a particular good is of less ‘quality’, but rather if it provides a better bang-for-the-buck. Focusing on just quality is just as bad as focusing just on price, it leads to errors in decision making.

        and, just so you know, the Chinese standard of living is rising, so much and so quickly that now they are starting to ‘outsource’ to other, cheaper-labor countries (africa). Also, it is because of robotics that American manufacturing has continually increased over the past 20 years, successfully competing with China and the world in general – this also has the benefit of needing less human labor to produce more goods… a wonderful thing and something we have been striving towards for thousands of years – think about it, we want goods and services, not more work!

        • ron R

          And how do these last comments tie in with your previous one re the freeloaders???

          • Leopardpm

            I do not remember talking about Freeloaders? In this thread, or in some other article thread? I think you might have me confused with someone else…

        • Praetor

          You be right, China sells a variety of things.

          I have a 1966 Ford f250 sitting in my out building, I’m the 2nd owner. I bought it from an old farmer, he maintained it meticulously, as have I. Same engine transmission rear end. I surmise it will out last me.

          The Chinese standard of living is as was the Soviet Union’s, the few become apart of their prosperity. China standard was so low to make 300/400 million wealthy and a larger middle class doesn’t constitute any great successes. To understand the Chinese successes all you need to know is, putting safety nets around their workers living space. The nets are to catch those jumping to their deaths.

          Labor saving robots are nothing more than, who needs you humans. What you really think their just going to allow people to live for FREE, provide all the people with the necessities and their wants.

          Think about it, we have to many goods of low quality and that means more of this wasteful goods have be continually produced and services, what services, government, customer service, what services.!!!

          • Leopardpm

            Do you think that I admire the Chinese government in any way? Nope, they continue to mistreat their people and deprive them of human rights as well as encourage their ‘businesses’ to do the same. And that culture will not change whether or not we trade with them. In fact, because of trade and the resulting increase of the average Chinese persons wealth, things are improving over there extremely fast – people are demanding changes in workplace safety, etc.

            “Think about it, we have to many goods of low quality”
            who is making these subjective judgements? The people purchasing these goods certainly do not think them ‘low quality’ in respect to other factors of the goods (price, etc). What in the world is ‘too many’? Why would folks waste money in buying ‘too many’? There tend to be as many goods supplied as are demanded for the price. If apples are $10 each, then fewer will be grown and sold, if they are $0.01 each then many more will be grown and sold. There is no ‘too many’, nor ‘too few’ in a free market because it is always adjusting towards ‘just right’.

            The whole purpose of all goods and services is to satisfy human needs and desires. Those goods and services which do not do this will cease to be produced because people do not want or need them. So, the goods we purchase from China are pretty close to the ‘right’ quantity, at the ‘right’ price, and have the ‘right’ quality… as determined by all the consumers of them – all other people really have no business making judgements on them.

          • Praetor

            The people purchasing these goods certainly do not have any other option but to buy low quality goods. They be all stamped made in China. That in itself is not good. That is not competition. That is manipulation and the consumer has to except it, and to make a judgement like, the Chinese are right on quantity, price and quality is a false statement, because it leaves out the equation of ‘competition’.

            And you really want to compare Apples to a manufactured piece of equipment. Something grow by nature and something manufactured by man. Really.!!!

          • Leopardpm

            “The people purchasing these goods certainly do not have any other option but to buy low quality goods.”
            two things: (1) if you follow your logic, then how do you explain ANY ‘high quality’ goods being produced at any time in history? If enough people want a higher quality good, then those folks who want to earn their ‘greedy profits’ will surely make them, right? I mean, the best way to profit is too make something that people want, especially if the competition is so awful. (2) If it happens to be the case that there are NO higher quality options on the market, it is exactly because people kept choosing the lower quality ones! This did not occur overnight, in a vacuum, right?

            Also, you keep saying they are low quality as if ‘quality’ is the ONLY thing that matters. That is like saying that ‘safety’ is the only thing that matters in cars, so we should all be driving tanks at 5mph to reduce traffic deaths to zero, right? When we purchase a Good, we are looking to fulfill some sort of desire(s). There are MANY variables we consider in our purchases: not just price, not just quality, but also many others. For instance, given two identical toothbrushes, exact same quality, exact same price, but one is colored black and one is light blue – why would the blue ones sell out and the black ones sit on the shelves unsold? Their capability to provide the function they are intended to serve is exactly the same: your teeth will get just as clean from using either.

            “And you really want to compare Apples to a manufactured piece of equipment.”
            of course! GOODS = GOODS = GOODS. It does not matter if a tree helps provide the labor of creating the apple and the humans have something to do with the picking and distributing of the apple… it is EXACTLY like any other Good. Not to mention, ‘man’ really has not learned how to create matter so EVERYTHING material starts out as ‘natural’ – my shovel is made from natural iron and natural wood, man just rearranged the substances into a form I would prefer. Same thing with an apple – apples do not ‘naturally’ appear in my hand when I desire one, they must be grown somewhere else, distributed quite a distance, and be made available to me for convenient purchase. There is quite alot of ‘labor’ of man which goes into getting an apple into my hand!

            Why do you think that the Chinese have no competition? Did they just open up their markets to the US and all of our industries automagically closed their doors? Not by a long shot! We compete like the devil in diapers! That is surely something the American worker + businessman know how to do together. But, we simply cannot compete and ‘win’ at everything, so, we let them have high labor intensive goods (which they have advantages at), and we focused on higher valued Goods and Services (which we have advantages at). It is a good thing! We got the benefits of about 40 years of being the world’s manufacturer (due to WW2 destroying everyone else’s capital goods), and it looks like China will only hold that position for a few decades before having to let it go to other countries down the chain (or being fully automated).

            It sounds like you have an interest in economics, and I totally agree that it is a great subject to understand. You would probably enjoy and benefit from ading some introductory economic texts – I suggest Henry Hazelitt’s: “Economics in One Lesson” which is available in free PDF form. It addresses a lot of the things you bring up and helps guide folks away from making common mistakes in their logical thinking.

          • Praetor

            Read that book already. Thanks. You’re posts are way to long to reply too.

            I can say my interest in economic or the market only goes as far as, why are governments involved in the economy and markets at all, please don’t reply with a mile long answer. I believe, I already know why and it goes against everything associated to free markets and free trade.

            Theories on economic is uninteresting. Individual human action and natural law are way more interesting, than theoretical economic.!!!

          • Leopardpm

            sorry about the long posts… I can get carried away and writing helps me to clear my thoughts, its probably more for me than for anyone reading…lol….

            glad you read his book… but it makes me wonder why you would then claim a difference between a ‘natural’ good like an apple vs any other good… but, its ok

          • Praetor

            Well, you see it way differently. You see it as a market product. I see it as life. That Apple will sustain my life. A tv, car, phone non of this ‘stuff’ do I need to sustain my life. The question has come down to have we created the right kind of world and is a debt world better then a savings world?!!!

          • Leopardpm

            debt word or savings world? in moderation both are good, in extreme, both are bad. To have no savings and loads of debt… very bad!

    • Leopardpm

      I believe you could use some more of Ockham’s razor and less conspiracy in your analysis.

      As far as we should be concerned, we would be happy to have china have all the manufacturing jobs… they are losing more and more value each day.

  • Praetor

    Trade is the voluntary interpersonal exchange of goods and free trade leads to the mutual benefit of both parties.

    What is questioned here is it free trade. Another question is competition apart of the free trade. The other question is a quality product being offered in any free trade.

    Reality is, America should and needs to produce and manufacture the things the US and world wants. Manufacture a high ‘Quality’ product and ‘Compete’ with the other manufacturers of the world and in the end ‘Trade Agreements’ are not needed.

    Of course low quality products will still have a niche, because of income of the buyer. Competition makes the world go around and eliminating competition, in my guess is what MA really wants.!!!

  • autonomous

    If trade stops, war starts? As if war needs an excuse. Beyond the need of tyrants to increase their take. Maybe if free trade stops. That would explain the fact that we live in perpetual warfare

    • Leopardpm

      Jack Ma is paraphrasing a quote usually attributed to a great classical economist Bastiat, “When goods don’t cross borders, Soldiers will”… meaning that the more benefit (trade) countries get from each other, the less chance of war occurring. Which is entirely logical – one typically avoids going to war with a friend.

  • Phil Scott

    Free trade is what creates wealth. Government controlled trade is not free. Whether it will create much wealth or not is a moot point.

  • disqus_1Op5S8jvui

    Who or which is the world?
    My country does need none of it.
    My country being my world needs to be left alone and in peace.
    My country has known for millennia how to trade and survive or live happily.
    Anything globalistic will lead to ballistic catastrophe. Thank you.
    A nationalist world is better. Globalistic nonsense is leading to modern slavery and wars.

    • Leopardpm

      What is your country? How do you own the entire country?
      What country is it that you are able to speak for all its’ citizens and determine, for them, what they want?

      Will you leave me ‘alone and in peace’ if I desire to trade with other countries, yet live in the same country as you?

      • disqus_1Op5S8jvui

        You may do whatever trade you wish and profit from as long as you do not affect my quality of life and destroy our environment.

        My country is the one with finite borders, civilised people sharing one language, culture and customs of usually one religion. It is also my country into which I pay taxes to its government in order for the government to protect and preserve our borders and laws and order!
        Good bi, thank you.

        • Leopardpm

          “You may do whatever trade you wish and profit from as long as you do not affect my quality of life and destroy our environment.”
          sounds reasonable, except that your ‘quality of life’ is very vague and could be interpreted to extend power over things which you do not own. For instance, you might consider it part of your ‘quality of life’ to have a job at a Buggy Whip manufacturing plant, and if I were to sell these new things called cars which quite possibly could put you out of work then you might say that I have affected your quality of life and therefore justify some sort of violence against me! So such vague terms would need to be defined much more. Am I ‘allowed’ to purchase and sell my wares with whomever voluntarily desires to do so, even if they are your neighbors? Or perhaps, even your customers?

          Does your country have a name?

          “My country is the one with finite borders, civilised people sharing one language, culture and customs of usually one religion.”
          how do you allow for the fact that language, culture, customs, and religions change over time? Mostly Christians came to the New World at first, and yet, from their midst, sprang a new group called Mormons. In America, there are different languages spoken due to different origins: french in the south and some north, german/chinese/japanese/spanish in some enclaves in the larger cities… even english itself has fragmented into sub-dialects in places… so, is the definition of an American that they must be able to speak english? Which version of english – the version that the original colonists spoke or the less formal version the is widespread today? We would even have a hard time understanding the original colonists…

          • disqus_1Op5S8jvui

            Re your first para: Of course you do, jobs are not for life, people have to maintain an effort to excel in their life, whichever way they wish as long as they do not disturb “thy neighbour”. Some we win and some we lose but we are free.

            Re your second para:
            The name does not matter, this is human brain weakness needing to immediately box an idea or thought.
            As for America, I feel at home when I visit, I have lived in it and know rather well. I have numerous friends and relatives.
            And it must protect its borders and citizens and friends.

            Yes, there is always change, (not necessarily progress) we evolved from an amoeba to be what we are and will definitely even look and behave very different in a thousand years from now. However, what I am talking about is freedom, respect and decency of mind, spirit and body, law and order which seems to be in ever shorter supply.
            I stop now, you and I cannot resolve the global problems others have created. We can only respect each other.

  • Vorant

    A trade war maybe.

  • eyesofgod

    For many years, I was completely against so-called “globalization”. Now, however, I have a different take. there is a new movement, a very positive one, in consciousness. Back in October of 2008, Adi Da made this statement:

    “Humankind is in the midst of a process of globalizing itself, and as a result, all the past signals of tribalism are breaking down. And so, in reaction to that, there’s a lot of effort to re-nationalize the mentality of people. People are re-tribalizing themselves because they’re reacting to the chaos associated with the process of being globalized.

    “However, the process of being globalized is necessary, inevitable and must become complete. That is the domain of right art now. Right art now is happening in the domain of the process of globalizing human consciousness, human culture, human life.

    “The moment is chaos, but it’s chaos not merely because of something negative. It’s chaos because a transformation is happening. It’s a kind of death that humankind is going through right now. But all transformation is; something is passing and something new is emerging. Right at the moment, there’s a lot of struggling to hold onto what’s passing and resist what is emerging.”

    See what I mean?

    • Leopardpm


      It does not say ‘why’ we are ‘globalizing ourselves’… why is this transformation occurring, and why ‘now’?

      what is ‘right art’? and what is the ‘domain of Right art’? is this artwork made by folks on the ‘right’, politically?

      some other parts make sense, but it is mostly just figurative. As it is, the post does not allow folks to understand the concepts behind it – too vague and meta-physical.

      • eyesofgod

        You’re right, Leopard. You have to know his context, the kind of language he uses. The art he is talking about is actually transcendental. It is now politically motivated in the usual sense of that word. It is very visual, non-verbal, taking us to a level of consciousness beyond the gross psycho-physical suffering world we tend to inhabit. To understand it best, one would need to visit and/or check out the little book, Prior Unity. Yes, Prior Unity would give you a good sense of his meaning. It’s beautiful and very positive. It’s about how we humans are already a unity, a family–even though, now and all through human time, we have never really acted as such. Now, of course, we absolutely MUST begin to act like it–and LIVE it–if we are to survive.

        • Leopardpm


          but apparently he is talking about a different kind of globalization than the type this article and thread are about, namely, global trade.

          • eyesofgod

            Right again, Leopard! However, the globalization he’s talking about is proceeding ahead, despite Brexit, Trump, and pretty much everything and everone else that stands in its way. It’s being helped by technology, especially, where we can communicate quicker and virtually universally (to and with those who have the technology), and data is ubiquitous. Borders of all kinds are vanishing, breaking down, and this can be a good thing–as he is suggesting, in the sense of the old nationalism, the tribalism, the “us against them” provincialism that prevents more cooperation. His formula is Cooperation + Tolerance = Peace. We are increasingly seeing how the emperor (old style of government and economics) has no clothes. It’s a paradigm shift. This is more along the lines Adi Da is talking about.

          • Leopardpm

            ok, well then, thank you for your contribution, sir! Can’t see how such a view hurts trade or increased prosperity – sounds good to me! One of the results of trade with other cultures is a deeper knowledge of what it means to be human, as well as increased peaceful cooperation as opposed to often violent methods used throughout history.

            (Note: I do not condone or endorse any religious viewpoints, my comments are limited to the few spheres that I have studied and consider myself to be able to at least converse in.)

  • rahrog

    Free trade cannot exist as long as central banks, fractional reserve lending, and fiat currency do.

    SECEDE from the central banks, and the governments they own.


  • MetaCynic

    Wasn’t it the great free market economist Ludwig von Mises who also made the same observation – armies will cross borders if goods are prevented from doing so?

    I recall during the 1960’s and 1970’s as Japan was building up its industrial might and legendary quality control, it was fashionable to accuse it of using slave labor to manufacture “shoddy” goods which undermined American manufacturing. Despite working conditions not quite up to American standards, a Chinese manufacturing job pays six times more than a Chinese farming job whose working conditions, I am sure, are nothing to brag about. Just as during the industrialization of America, farm workers in China are leaving the countryside for manufacturing jobs in the cities. Who commenting here would pass up a job paying six times more and with better working conditions than you presently have?

    American industry could be far more competitive if taxes paid by both businesses and individuals were much lower. Dismantling the oppressive regulatory burden would also help. So would drastically cutting military spending and returning that money to the private sector. Our best and brightest scientists, engineers and technicians are swept up by the military industries to devise new ways to blow up things and kill people. American industry could leapfrog ahead if these workers’ ingenuity was instead devoted to dreaming up new ways to produce new things for consumers.

    Despite what we hear all the time, American manufacturing jobs peaked in 1950 as a percentage of the workforce. This loss is largely due to automation just as was the loss of farming jobs. For example, at its employment peak the American steel industry employed 500,000 workers who produced 120 million tons of steel annually. Today the American steel industry produces 150 million tons of steel annually but with only 50,000 workers. With better tools each steel worker now produces 12.5 times more steel and under much better working conditions. Are we supposed to lament this situation?

    It’s easy to create millions of construction jobs. Just replace all earth moving machines with teams of workers with shovels. But of course their productivity would be extremely low and so, as a result, would be their standard of living.

    • Leopardpm

      the saying is usually attributed to Bastiat, but it is unproven.

  • Pedestrian

    It seems there is a divergence or variety of meaning to the term ‘globalization’ in different circles. Among the more libertarian minded Western audience, the term carries with it sinister connotations of a supreme one-world government, the ultimate Orwellian nightmare. Among the Chinese, the term simply means more unencumbered international trade. They believe this can be facilitated through various international platforms whereby negotiations and agreements can be made. This does not imply dominance of one nation over any other, which is the last thing the Chinese would want having suffered through semi-colonization by the Western powers in the 19th and early 20th centuries. They are hence diligently pursuing the modern implementation of the ancient overland and maritime Silk Routes, having seen how much prosperity such international trade had brought in history.

  • georgesilver

    Sounds like a new sales strategy for car manufacturers. Buy my car or I’ll come round and burn your house down. Globalisation in a nutshell.

    • Leopardpm

      I don’t understand… can you explain the metaphor in what you are saying?

  • Tim Groves

    A note on usage:

    Bilateral = involving two parties, especially countries.

    Trade agreements such as NAFTA and the TPP involving more than two countries are multilateral.

    • Leopardpm

      the only tariffs and agreements we should be concerned with are Unilateral, meaning only one – dump the tariffs we charge ourselves, let our citizens be free to make whatever trade negotiations with other countries and businesses that they want and can. Be the ‘guiding light’ out of this morass of taxation and nationalistic fervor!

    • Peter Harris

      Your beloved Guru blocked most of my comments to you, so i’ll post one of my reply’s here…

      What, you mean like this??

      “And you’re doing your best impression of a gibbering idiot.”

      “Raise your words, not voice. It is rain that grows flowers, not thunder.”

      – Jalaluddin Rumi

      Ha ha,

      You NP, are a hypocritical dribbler.

      Was it you, who referred to me as a “potty mouth?”

      I asked you to substantiate that claim, but you conveniently disappeared.

      “Also, your characterization of Gail’s “arguments” as “disingenuous”…The word “disingenuous” means not candid or sincere…”

      Yes, thats right.

      Its good to see we agree on something.

      Also, I’m just a little curious to see that you put the word arguments with quotation marks.

      So, you’re having doubts about the validity of Gail’s “arguments” also? 😉

      “Here’s a tip, when trying to strike a plausibly intelligent pose while trolling, stick to words of two syllables or less. That will be less embarrassing for you in the long run,”

      What, like this??

      Tim Groves – BlackJake 2 years ago

      “Yes, diarrhea, also spelled “diarrhoea” in British English; the condition of having at least three loose or liquid bowel movements each day. The only observations I’ve put forward are that we the readers suffer from your verbal diarrhea and your intellectual constipation, and that you keep repeating yourself and have an irritating penchant for trying to correct other people’s spelling. These are merely observations, son, not views.”

      Reply View in discussion

      Tim Groves

      Tim Groves – BlackJake 2 years ago

      “We the readers suffer from your verbal diarrhea and your intellectual constipation, son; and from your nitpicking of other commenters’ spelling mistakes.”

      I am always curious to see men, who love cats.

      Men like yourself, enjoy the company cats, because men like yourself, question their perceived lack of masculinity. Men such as yourself, feel threatened by real women, because you believe they will expose your perceived lack of masculinity, whereas with cats, who are also feminine, do not question, or threaten your tenuous masculinity.

      In short, men such as yourself, will surround themselves with cats, as a boost to your fragile and floundering masculinity, whereas real women, could destroy what masculinity you have left, well, with the exception of some truly submissive and obsequious women, which are hard to find today. So cats, are convenient substitutes.

      And yes, I’m a practising Psychologist.

      • Leopardpm

        “I’m a practising Psychologist”

        Physician, heal thyself!

        From the tone and tenor of your post, and the fact you basically ‘stalked’ the poster from other threads, I would guess that you are neither a psychologist, nor past puberty…

        • Peter Harris

          “Physician, heal thyself!”

          Do you understand that saying??
          Whats your qualifications?
          Clearly, its not Economics.
          And poor Timmy, can’t fight for himself??

          • Leopardpm

            Of course I understand the saying – You were claiming to be a ‘practising’ Psychologist, and I was saying that if that is indeed true, then you should practice your craft on yourself – it was a good and expertly crafted turn-of-phrase, humor, you know? In other words, if you were to look at your post using your objective Psychological talents, you would see that you are displaying some very obvious issues…. Re-read your post without being so emotionally involved (I guess he really got under your skin, so much so that you stalked him from another thread even!) and do a little bit of self-analysis…

            As far as economics, I know more than most, not as much as some… but this isn’t about economics, its about your display of traits that might be related to some sort of mental disorder…

            BTW: I don’t know Timmy… I just came across your post that struck me as totally unrelated to the thread… but I will leave you to your trolling about….

          • Peter Harris

            “… if you were to look at your post using your objective Psychological talents, you would see that you are displaying some very obvious issues…. Re-read your post without being so emotionally involved (I guess he really got under your skin, so much so that you stalked him from another thread even!) and do a little bit of self-analysis…”

            Yes, and my action (of 1 post) does not even constitute the dictionary definition of “Stalking.”


            “BTW: I don’t know Timmy…”

            But you spend a couple of hundred words defending him.
            Who would do that, for a total stranger??

  • groeg

    America has exportet know how such as quality control to Japan.The person was named “Deming”.The Japs have adopted his system und implanted it in Japans factories.So they became sucessful, not because of low wages.In the meantime in western factories the name of Deming ist unknown.It’s their fault.

  • Dimitri Ledkovsky

    “Free trade” has become force feeding. Humans have been turned into Strasbourg Geese.

  • UVN

    If the Chinese or Mexicans did not allow any (zero, nada) US imports and could build a car for a dollar ($1) should Americans say “no thanks we would rather pay tens of thousands and keep our manufacturing jobs”?

    • Leopardpm

      exactly… and to go further as it pertains to upcoming revolutions in automation: what if a box were invented where you put $1 in one slot and out the back came a car? Should we destroy the box because of all the folks involved in making cars would be put out of work and lose money (capital)?

      This is how trade and automation are EXACTLY the same as far as economic effect. A person who is Protectionist is actually a Luddite, denying the advanced technology of trade itself!

      • UVN

        You got it.

      • Astromoney

        Royal R Rife cured 16 of 16 people of cancer within 3 months in 1934. His laboratory was trashed of stolen by US Govt forces and he barely escaped to Mexico. Want to know about those who have invented Free Energy machines, watch free movie here:

      • beard681

        BS. I have automated plants for 40 years and the wonders of what the vendors call “Industry 4.0” or “Automation 2.0” provide very much less improvement in productivity compared to earlier improvements brought on by mechanization, electrification, materials and programmable controllers. The main benefit is that it does is allow the benefits of automation already in place in mass production to filter down to smaller niche manufacturers, batch processing and customization industries.

        BTW, factories in Asia and Mexico buy plenty of automation equipment and services. Automation has many benefits other than simple labor displacement. Economics and science fiction are not one and the same.

        • Leopardpm

          How does what you say make my statement ‘BS’?

          Basically, no matter how or where in the production chain the effects of automation are felt, there are benefits – and the net effect of those benefits are an increased productivity – which means LESS cost (and usually labor) per unit produced. There is nothing ‘science fiction’ about the advancements in AI and robotics, and these advancements will have tremendous economic effects that should be taken into account and prepared for (as best we can).

          For example: There are Self-Driving Trucks on the road TODAY – within 5yrs they will start greatly displacing the transportation industry labor force (not just truckers, but all manner of transport including UPS drivers, taxis, Uber drivers, Medical Couriers, etc)… this comprises a large amount of labor in our economy…. don’t you think it is smart to talk about what this means and how best to prepare for it?

          The future is now.

  • elainhouston

    Globalization is a word describing the “Death of Freedom”, for Nations and individuals. The most powerful “POWER”, on Earth is the control of the Human Masses. The most powerful tool for acquiring control of the masses is the control of the money supply. This power is almost complete by the Rothschild Banking Family located in the TAX FREE ZONE, the CITY of LONDON, within London, U.K.. The Rothschild Family is in complete control of the IMF, The Global Central Banks, the UNITED NATIONS, THE EURO COMMUNITY, also has the U.S.A. Political System in it’s back pocket. The European ” , was the “Trial Run” the “learning phase”, for Globalization. Brexit, and the Trump Election in the U.S. has caused a rupture in the BANKERS tightening the noose, on their final take over. Global Warming, which was their vehicle for fait accompli, which was endorsed and promoted by POPE FRANCIS, at the U.N., and unanimously ratified in Paris, also has been put on hold because Pres.Trump is backing out, and perhaps even leaving the U.N. Should the previous Global Planning be enjoined again, individual freedoms would become non-existent globally, the “implorables” of the world would be dealt with summarily, with biological weapons, and death squads, until the desired quota of approx. 2 billion Humans is attained, as stated by the godless Global influential Environmentalists. “THINK ABOUT IT”,

    • Leopardpm

      as usual, the word ‘Globalization’ embodies a great many concepts and definitions. Look at this one definition:

      is a process of interaction and integration among the people,
      companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by
      international trade and investment and aided by information technology.

      Integrating people, companies, and governments are 3 different things, with 3 different results and effects upon freedom for Nations and Individuals. While your brief rant/post above might be relatively descriptive of some sort of ‘governmental globalization’, it does not pertain or address ‘economic globalization’. otherwise known as international free trade, which benefits all of the citizens.

      Unfortunately for your cause, your choice and manner of posting presents as something from a ‘drank the kool-aid’ fanatic with definite ‘conspiracy theory’ overtones. If there is indeed some grand Rothschild conspiracy, you are only helping it by presenting the other side as crazed and inept.

      • Geoist_II

        Classical free trade that Adam Smith would recognise was defined as freedom from Monopoly, freedom from rentiers freedom from bankers.

        Neo Classical free trade that we’ve had an increasing amount of over the past 30+ years is simply freedom from tariffs.

        Difference being the former means workers can protect the value of their labour stay clear of debt and would benefits all citizens. The latter means they can do neither and is dependent on most citizens getting into debt. Therefore only the minority that have the easiest access to capital can ever benefit.

        • Leopardpm

          assuming that you are labeling the trade arrangements that the US has had in the last 30+ years as ‘Neo-Classical Free Trade’, then I would not describe it as ‘simply freedom from tariffs’… the trade agreements incorporate all manner of nasty things that go far beyond reducing tariffs.

          I have only read some of Adam Smith, but never have I seen his Free Trade views portrayed as “defined as freedom from Monopoly, freedom from rentiers freedom from bankers.”… how do you support this assertion?

          • Geoist_II

            Economics is not something I have studied, however since the 2008 crisis I have limited my reading to economists that predicted economic behaviour in the period before and upto the crisis. Most notably Steve Keen and Michael Hudson. Others are identified in the following paper.


            The link in my original post is to an interview with Michael Hudson from whom I pinched that assertion. It made sense to me.

          • Astromoney

            #1 Stock Market Timer of 2008 on CNBC:

      • Peter

        Nonsense there is no such thing as free trade. Japan owns 30 percent of the stock market, they cant sell cars to Korea and Korea cant sell them to japan. Also we cannot compete with slave labor and and no environmental standards.This has been engineered through these, trade deals, and benefit the one percent they represent. We have already lost the trade war, the factories are gone.That’s not a “conspiracy theory” but a fact we deal with today.

    • Astromoney

      The Georgia Guide Stones suggests 500,000 – That’s 500 Million!

  • The world needs global trade, not global government. Free movement of people is not prevented by immigration controls, only criminals and terrorists need fear passport checks; for the rest of us surely a few minutes inconvenience is not too great a price to pay for the security of many people.

  • here

    trade and globalization are not homonyms

  • DemandSider2

    Since when is PRC state owned manufacturing, American socialized agribusiness and banking, and government welfare workers for the service sector employees “free trade”? Mankind has never seen such un – free trade in all history. Thirty + straight trade deficits is enough, it’s your turn to start consuming the world’s manufactured goods, Communist China, we’re too loaded up with trade debt.

    • Leopardpm

      trade debt? what in the world is that?

      I purchase plenty of Chinese items, but there is no ‘debt’ associated with those purchases… I owe them nothing, and they owe me nothing – trades are complete. From where does this mysterious ‘trade debt’ rise from?

      “it’s your turn to start consuming the world’s manufactured goods, Communist China”
      Funniest statement today! So… now you want us to produce goods and services to give to China at a discount rate through subsidies (like they have been doing to us)? You want us to work as slaves to the Chinese? While we reduce our own consuming…. very strange outlook…

      • DemandSider2

        You know those pieces of paper you use to buy communist Chinese things? That is called an “IOU”. Now, when The Communist Chinese get those IOUs, you are right, they probably will not use them to buy an American manufactured thing. They use them to purchase something which will reward them beyond the dollar value. So, for example, they own AMC and Carmike Cinemas, Forbes Magazine, Smithfield Foods, Legendary Entertainment, GE Appliance, The Chicago Stock Exchange, Riot Games, Motorola, IBM Computers, etc.

        Now, if you are comfortable with an Orwellian, non democratic nightmare state which records even your toilet paper use, owning YOUR company, there is no problem. For everyone else, this is a very frightening development.

        P.S. Search these, just for kicks:

        China uses facial recognition software to crack down on toilet paper theft

        China’s Illegal Organ-Harvesting Trade Is Still Booming

  • Maximiliano Plus Adrienne

    any multi billionaire trying 2 protect the world from the evils of capitalism must b taken with a pinch of salt, mais non?

  • Astromoney

    Are the Chinese still making the .762 NATO rifle bullets? Read they were years ago. How about the big stuff for 105, 155 artillery rounds?

  • Josh

    I think it more accurate to say rich globalists need globalism, at the expense and freedoms of the people of the world who are not rich globalists. Think locally, act locally.

    • Leopardpm

      Buy Local, Impoverish Local

      Think Best Value, Receive Productive Growth

      • Josh

        Purveyors of cheap off-shore made items impoverished this country and yet you say it’s the other way round. The facts support my case.

        • Leopardpm

          and how, exactly, does OFFERING for sale any good or service, no matter what its cost/price is, ‘impoverish’ anyone? So, ‘choices’ make you less wealthy? Your ‘facts’ are rather empty…