> "The western world was all pro "internationalism" when it came to exploiting the east and Africa (centuries of colonialism), but now, want to go back into their shells."

The "western world" is not a person. "The western world" does not have opinions. The people who make up the western world have read about Colonialism in textbooks, and they've been taught it was terrible. Why should these people want to be victims of it?

> "Can't have it both ways."

As frustrating as you may consider apparent inconsistency and hypocrisy to be, I think you'll find that there is no law of the universe that actually prevents it.

>The "western world" is not a person. "The western world" does not have opinions. The people who make up the western world have read about Colonialism in textbooks, and they've been taught it was terrible. Why should these people want to be victims of it?

What do you think of affirmative action?

> I think you'll find that there is no law of the universe that actually prevents it.

I meant that as a moral statement. As in "you shouldn't do something bad." There is no universal preventing it.

Why do you wonder what I think about affirmative action?

>"you shouldn't"

Why shouldn't Americans enact trade policy that is best for Americans?

> Why do you wonder what I think about affirmative action?

Reread your own comment and think about it :)

> Why shouldn't Americans enact trade policy that is best for Americans?

Because Americans have forced others to act against their own self-interests. Read about opening of Japan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition#Threat_of_for...

If everyone does that, the world will turn shitty quite soon.

You are confusing colonialism with internationalism. They're not really related concepts.

No he isn't, the trade deals which allowed near slave labor in SE Asia and exploiting for natural resources in Africa (by foreign actors) is from the same economic doctrine that allows sweatshops in Mexico (NAFTA) and will be the same ideology that passes TPP.

Near slave labor exists in SE Asia because the national governments in that part of the world are willing to tolerate it. There are plenty of countries with free trade agreements that don't have poor working conditions. Near slavery is not a necessary consequence of trade deals -- it is a consequence of bad government. It existed long before free trade agreements.

Similarly, resource exploitation occurs in countries whose governments are willing to allow their resources to be exploited. It happened hundreds of years before any free trade agreements were signed, and it will continue to happen until those governments change their practices.

And how any of those countries wanting to change their practices have the CIA distributed a few well-placed bullets or coups in? Ever heard of Jacobo Arbenz? Or watched Syriana?

What about Opium wars?

One country using military force to coerce another country into trading with them does not constitute a free trade agreement. Free trade agreements are consensual.

You haven't actually studied mercantilism much, have you?

No, they were not the "same economic doctrine", or anything like it.