The Case for Compensated Free Trade

[Peter1469]

The Case for Compensated Free Trade

This is an interesting article. Not very complementary towards liberal globalism.

According to Harvard’s Dani Rodrik, the nation-state, democracy, and globalization are mutually irreconcilable: we can have any two, but not all three simultaneously. In fact, there may be a solution to Rodrik's “trilemma.”





Almost all liberals support globalization and oppose economic nationalism. They ignore the mounting evidence that, in its current form, globalization is dangerously incompatible with democracy.

In his 2011 book The Globalization Paradox, Harvard’s Dani Rodrik says that the nation-state, democracy, and globalization are mutually irreconcilable: we can have any two, but not all three simultaneously (he calls this a “trilemma”). All over the world, the “nation” has been revolting against globalization in the name of democracy.


That became clear this year when US President Donald Trump imposed the first of a widening set of tariffs against Chinese goods, with China retaliating in kind. Trump has also torn up two major international trade treaties and threatened to withdraw from the World Trade Organization.

The article then discusses a way to wed economic nationalism with economic globalism.

The economist Vladimir Masch has advocated an ingenious “compensated free trade” (CFT) plan as a way to achieve legitimate protectionist aims without disrupting the world economic system.

The article does not discuss cultural globalism, which is a separate topic.

[Brett Nortje]

Globalization seems to be a form of nationalism, if you ask me. With one cause in mind, to see the world settle on free trade, we must remember that it is not the public sector that actually trades, it is the private sector. Making things easier for one route means another route is ignored, and, that means the rich get richer... and so on. If there were no trade deals, those on top would cease getting the best deals. They get the best deals because they have leverage on the markets, where they have a currency that helps them. This could be made right by observing you don't want to buy stuff, you want to sell stuff, hey? That means you want a junk currency, and, that means that the customer is the powerful, at the mercy of the weak one, if you will?

This makes no sense, there must be corruption somewhere! How can the third world be the supplier, and yet be poor?

[Peter1469]

Globalization seems to be a form of nationalism, if you ask me. With one cause in mind, to see the world settle on free trade, we must remember that it is not the public sector that actually trades, it is the private sector. Making things easier for one route means another route is ignored, and, that means the rich get richer... and so on. If there were no trade deals, those on top would cease getting the best deals. They get the best deals because they have leverage on the markets, where they have a currency that helps them. This could be made right by observing you don't want to buy stuff, you want to sell stuff, hey? That means you want a junk currency, and, that means that the customer is the powerful, at the mercy of the weak one, if you will?

This makes no sense, there must be corruption somewhere! How can the third world be the supplier, and yet be poor?

That can only work with some sort of shared culture or cause. We don't have that globally.