> Anti-globalism is now bipartisan in America.

Globalism is fantastic for business and stocks, but horrible for the American worker.

Now dozens of countries can do what we can do, and our labor and talent is expensive.

We eroded a lot of our capabilities to chase after higher value of being the final step in production. Now we see how fragile that makes us. And everyone is gunning to compete at our level.

I might understand this incorrectly, but doesn't it also mean that American businesses have a greater market to sell to?

Globalism within the EU seems to work really well for Germany, even though there is far cheaper labour in the EU.

I am way out of my depth here, so I could be wrong.

> I might understand this incorrectly, but doesn't it also mean that American businesses have a greater market to sell to?

"American" companies aren't always entirely owned by Americans. Sometimes they get purchased outright by foreign conglomerates or shareholders (eg. Anheuser-Busch) or take on foreign investment (eg. SoftBank). Once they're public, lots of entities can own the stock.

Labor doesn't have to be based in the US. Wages go overseas all the time. Your iPhone is manufactured abroad. Amazon hires lots of non-American programmers.

Companies move to states with fewer labor laws and cheaper labor also.

Is the only difference here that there is a possibility of federal tax revenue being distributed throughout one country? You can even go one more level down to cities and states rather than states and country.

Minimum wage is closer, environmental standards are somewhat similar, and laws can be passed on a federal level. It is just as easy for workers to change states as businesses while internationally it is easier for businesses to change locations than workers.

>Now dozens of countries can do what we can do

You couldn't stop that, the rest of the world was going to catch up one way or another.

> Globalism is fantastic for business and stocks, but horrible for the American worker.

Often claimed, hard to prove.

In fact, isolating your economy to protect increasingly ineffective industries is the exact opposite of what is good for the avg. worker.

It sure helps those industries that are specifically. protected.

> We eroded a lot of our capabilities to chase after higher value of being the final step in production. Now we see how fragile that makes us. And everyone is gunning to compete at our level.

And the solution to this is exactly not to try to use restrictive trade policies.

Not so simple. People like cheap goods.

I’d wager they like job security better overall, they just respond strongly to the flashy cheap knicknack in the moment. We really don’t need more cheaply made junk in the world.

America chose Wal-Mart over main Street in the 90s. Cheap shit > good jobs.

More like cheap jobs make cheap shit from Walmart attractive.

In many areas of the country, the pendulum is swinging in the opposite direction. Malls are dying and downtowns are rising again.

America chose Wal Mart and then regretted it. The death of Main Street and the associated economic insecurity was a contributing factor to Trumpism, even if the people voting that way didn’t explicitly realize it.