Globalization is more destructive than economists realize

Three years ago a Dartmouth economist waxed ecstatic before a group of Dartmouth parents about the huge benefits of free trade (and globalization.)

Shiv Kapoor - who clearly represents global fusion - says shunning globalization can cause an economy to fail. Later he says globalization contributed to the bubble. And the answer is global regulation.

Both Kapoor and the Dartmouth econimist - who should know as Paul Samuelson now does that up to 2,000 U. S. economists could be replaced with cheaper economists from beyond our borders - fail to factor in the huge economic damage done to the U. S. by the demolition of high wage manufacturing jobs and their replacement with lower wage service jobs. This was and is an important component of globalization.

The new wave of service workers who would have made more money in manufacturing have less purchasing power.

Also, massive illegal immigration further busted the inflationary wage cycle that is absolutely essential to keep the usury banking system going. When that cracked, the banks were doomed. They can no longer count on inflating wages to help their borrowers pay back loans made out of thin air.

Globalization did more than create a bubble. It caused the U. S. and world economy to, in the long run, fail.

The solution is not the simple mantra of regulation of global money flow.
Besides, it is contradictory to say free labor and trade are mandatory, but not the free flow of capital.

It has been proven that the free flow of capital will seek the lowest cost denominator even if, by doing so, the higher paid consumer of those lower production cost items become unable to buy them.

The world is far more complicated than dismal scientists seem able to comprehend.
If money flow should be regulated, then maybe the deconstruction of the U. S. manufacturing base, which made us more self sufficient to boot, should have been not just regulated, but stopped.

People who had to pay $3 more for a shirt would at least have a $5 or more an hour job to help pay for it.

Protectionism and reclaiming lost manufacturing jobs would be the quickest way to restore economic health in the U. S., but now there is no capital to tool up.
By the way, the farming sector and other industries keep pointing out that while the globalists extol the values of free markets for the U. S., they neglect to point out that much of the world still protects their own markets in selected industries, making the playing field uneven anyway.

Hasn't the U. S. repeatedly accused China of unfairly supporting its own dollar?
See, the theory that globalization is great and everyone will play fair always breaks down in reality? China protected its currency artificially. Maybe the U. S. should have protected its manufacturing base artificially.

Our consumers would have consumed less because each unit consumed cost more, but the bubble would not have been so frothy I bet.