STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Trump Stresses Globalism but It Should Be Within a Process of Free Trade
By Daily Bell Staff - January 18, 2017

Donald Trump is committed to globalisation. Davos told Elite in Europe and US have misunderstood trade stance says Anthony Scaramucci … A senior member of Donald Trump’s team insisted that the president-elect was committed to globalisation, open trade and Nato, despite recent comments that unsettled America’s allies. -FT

Donald Trump either misunderstand what globalism is, or he’s not being accurate about the procedure.

Anthony Scaramucci, Mr Trump’s newly appointed public liaison official, informed the World Economic Forum in Davos on Tuesday that elites had misunderstood Trump. He said that Trump was committed to globalism and that they would understand that better once he took office.

But in fact globalism as it is practiced now, is not doing anybody a service. Globalism is not supposed to bring positive result. It is supposed to buttress the current state of affairs that will lead to insolvency or bankruptcy for many if not most nation-states.

More.

In particular, he argued that it was wrong to assume that Mr Trump was opposed to free trade. He was simply seeking to ensure that trade deals were “symmetrical”, rather than organised as a means for the US to help other countries.

“Every single trade deal that the US has [created] since 1945 were these asymmetrical deals. Because we were trying to help countries improve their living standards,” he said. “We call those agreements free trade but they were free asymmetrically. So all we’re asking for now is to create more symmetry in these trade agreements.”

Trump may want more symmetry, but as a libertarian publication, we’d like to see more freedom above all else. We don’t think government should be involved in managed trade. We think business ought to determine the elements and particulars of free trade, because it is business that makes the deals.

Businesses should be deciding what to do and how to do it.

Scaramucci also said Trump did not want to end NATO, even though he’d called it obsolete. Scaramucci said the treaty would have to be updated because it was focused on communism when today’s main threat came from terrorism.

The appearance of Scaramucci virtually by himself at Davis did not add to the credibility of his message though at least some chose to consider it because Scaramucci was a legitimate Trump spokesman. However, it was also thought that Scaramucci might be playing down Trump’s differences of opinion with many at Davos just to win corporate support.

He also argued that Trump’s message was being delivered in a certain way because people were alienated from much of what went on at places like Davos. But he and others argued that attendees ought to look to a shared future rather than a litany of misunderstood catchphrases.

At least one American in attendance said, “We have to work with this administration to get the best outcome — it’s in our interests that Trump succeeds, not fails.”

While such an attitude buttresses Trump’s arguments, the larger issue is that Trump ought to stick to his original instincts when it comes to trade and other industry related issues. The market itself is a good deal more predictable and certain than government.

Trump should trust the market to deliver results rather than government because ultimately it is the market that determines the success or failure of goods and services.

Conclusion: Government can impose treaties by force, but the less force the government exerts, the more useful a specific conduit can be. The more treaties involve voluntary trade rather than managed trade, the better.

Tagged with:
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Hi, Daily Bell Staff,

    In these modern times and novel spaces of fake news, is the following something else to bear in mind, because of the dirty secrets it easily reveals …..

    Loads of fake news with phantom enemies outed in media and reported to be the real culprits behind all that is discussed, advises those said parties of the origin/source of all media hosted woes.

    And quite what the falsely maligned would like and choose to do about it, is something always best kept a state/non-state actor top secret. One wouldn’t want to be prior broadbandcasting one’s actions/proactions/HyperRadioProActive IT Operations, would one? That would be really stupid and akin to madness.

    And in these modern times and novel spaces are the tools and weapons available for smarter intelligent use like nothing ever defended against before.

    Is it true that Trump is no smart puppet nor a dumb waiter servering to any old fools’ gold administering executive

  • Blame big government (excessive regulation, excessive taxation, excessive spending and the Federal Reserve) for hoarding off-shore, outsourcing, corporate inversions and the problems of American workers; not innovation, not technology, not immigration, not globalization, not foreign currency manipulation, not foreign subsidies, not journalists, not the media.

    • CSiang

      – We are confident that President Trump will look into that… We will see when he move into the White House.

  • dave3200 ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ

    I sure hope Anthony is wrong:

    “Anthony Scaramucci, Mr Trump’s newly appointed public liaison official, informed the World Economic Forum in Davos on Tuesday that elites had misunderstood Trump. He said that Trump was committed to globalism and that they would understand that better once he took office.”

  • alison cline

    You are making it hard to read with so much misspelling–get an editor

    • bouf

      Several parts of this piece seem as though they were written by a non-native english speaker. But I found at least one straight out misspelling as well, “focussed”, which even this Disqus box knows is incorrect. It’s been a recurring problem for the DB; for the last year, it seems.

      • You can spell it both ways.

        Adjective[edit]
        focussed ‎(comparative more focussed, superlative most focussed)

        (Britain) Alternative spelling of focused
        Antonyms[edit]
        unfocussed
        Verb[edit]
        focussed

        (Britain) simple past tense and past participle of focus
        Usage notes[edit]

      • alison cline

        I’ve noticed.

    • Where are the misspellings, Alison. We don’t find them.

    • Bruce C.

      Even the title is messed up.

      • The title is not messed up. There are no misspellings.

        • Bruce C.

          No, but it was illiterate. But not any more. Thank you. (But how hard is it to proof read?)

  • Alan

    There’s global free trade and there’s global control of national governments and people. Two different things.

  • CCblogging

    I am not sure what Trump thinks Globalism is but here’s Globalism as I understand it. The UN has a plan for a Global government. UN Agenda 2030 plans to erase our established borders, it voids American law and it destroys our US Constitution. The Globalist UN with the cooperation of Globalist puppet Obama have scheduled this NWO to be FULLY IMPLEMENTED in just 13 years. However, Obama has put it on fast track and has been implementing Globalism in increments to keep Americans in the dark. The agreements that Obama has made with the UN on the climate change lie and Obama’s agreement with the UN to seize our guns is all part of Obama’s and the left’s NWO Globalism. Also, Obama’s surrender of our internet to the UN is part of this Fascist/Socialist Globalism.

    • Mstrjack

      The U.S. Constitution has been destroyed since at least 1913 and more likely it has not had force of law since 1871. RIP LaVoy Finicum

  • Licia

    Right, I am reminded of the eggs marked “free range” and why do they have exactly the same taste as the regular ones.

    • Samarami

      “Free range” means that the chickens are free to leave whenever they’ve a mind to do so. Move to the other side of the fenced pecking yard, that is. Free range neither changes the taste of the eggs nor the freedom of the chicken. But it sounds good. The unwashed masses love to buy “natural” stuff.

      Sort of like, “…The more treaties involve voluntary trade rather than managed trade, the better…” Realizing, of course, that any agreement between two or more psychopaths with rape on their agenda does not ease the mind of young ladies remaining at their mercy.

      “Let’s hope they’ll be more gentle this time”. Sam

      • Licia

        exactly
        and oh yes, I am sure that this time the transition from cold to boiling will be slower, gentler

  • autonomous

    “Jokers to the left of me, clowns to the right. Here I am, stuck in the middle again.”

    Where will wishful thinking get us? Wherever the handlers want us. Certainly not where we wish to be. Where Trump and his crew want us is where Obama and his crew wanted us: willing participants, at least participants.

  • georgesilver

    Free Trade is where a large corporation enters a country by bribing its government and then undercuts the local competition until they no longer exist. Once the local competition has been eliminated the prices can rise.

    There is no such thing as “free trade”.

    • Licia

      and if the government cannot be bribed let’s have a colored revolution

  • James Clander

    “He was simply seeking to ensure that trade deals were “symmetrical”, rather than organised as a means for the US to help other countries.”

    What a load of rubbish – there wouldn’t be even a single Trade Deal where the USA
    has not written the finer details to make sure the ONLY winner is the USA.

    Any country falling into bed with the USA in a Trade Deal will get the sharp end !

    • CSiang

      – That was Obama’s & pre-Obama’s administrations …
      – We are going to witness changes where there’s Win-Win treaties & genuine cooperations amongst all parties involve in the future.

    • FEEuser

      How does he define “symmetrical”?

  • rahrog

    Just because you are free to make a trade doesn’t mean it is a good trade.

  • windsor1

    Trump is morphing before our eyes. We are all in trouble

  • Blame big government (excessive regulation, excessive taxation, excessive spending and the Federal Reserve) for hoarding off-shore, outsourcing, corporate inversions and the problems of American workers; not innovation, not technology, not immigration, not globalization, not foreign currency manipulation, not foreign subsidies, not journalists, not the media.

loading