Should America return to an isolationist policy for a few years?

[everythingsxen]

I have been thinking about this idea since Gulf War 1.

What if we just said "Screw it."?

I have kicked the idea around and heard how our economy would tank, but honestly isn't our economy tanked anyway? We need to rebuild our infrastructure and depend on ourselves, not other countries.

So what do you think DU? Could we? Should we?

[madrchsod]

1. no

we have to rethink our policy. we cannot withdraw from the world,but we have to do what we need to do to rebuild our country.

[el_gato]

2. the elite will never support isolationism

although i do
over a hundred years of destroying democracy in other countries is enough

but too much money is being made by raping the world

[BillZBubb]

3. To a certain degree YES.

While we cannot withdraw from the world, and should not, we can do less interfering in the rest of the world.

Economically we need to end our foolish embrace of "free trade". What we've really got is a race to the bottom on wages, worker protection, and the environment.

We must impose tariffs on goods and services coming into the USA based on the relative standard of living of the workers in the country of origin.

For instance, if the US average hourly wage is $20 (with bennies), and say China has $2/hour, for every hour of labor in a product, there should be at least a $10 tariff. Tariffs rates could be set twice a year based on latest data.

Such a system would have very positive results for everyone. Other countries could lower their tariff costs by increasing their standard of living. The US would see much less outsourcing. And, the tariffs would lessen our twin deficits--trade and budget.

[everythingsxen]

4. I guess what I would like to see is..

America return to our Isolation policy and try to limit our contact with other countries for a while, like 10 years.

Just say "Ok world, we are closing our borders. Everyone who wants in, get in now, everyone who wants out, get out now. Anyone who is not a citizen or is cheating/lying about who they really are will be considered a spy and subsequently deported." Give those people some amnesty time to come forward and beome citizens. Issue an apology to the world, saying we are sorry for some of the things we have done in recent years, and further apologize for retreating away from the world. Refuse to fight in other peoples wars. It pains me to say so, because I believe the strong should defend the weak, however, sometimes the weak need to build up their own strength and stand on their own.

Within our own borders we would then focus on shifting America in a new direction, make those cities of the future we have talked about for years. A huge rebuilding effort, modernizing the whole of our nation and trying to make our environmental footprint a little smaller.

Actually make those hydrogen cars. Eliminate our use of oil if possible.

Maintain our vigilence though and watch for attacks. Essentially, inform the world that we will no longer engage in war, however, we will maintain a suffucuent military andfurthermore, any attack will be met with a maximum (i.e. nuclear) retaliation.

Internally I think we should do some serious policy changes, like centralizing certain aspects of Governemnt and taking them out of the hands of private corporations. Like Power and Telecoms. That should, IMO, all be public property, run by the Government, paid for by taxes. It is ridiculous to have people with no power and no water and no phone. These things are all, basically, essential in this day in age. I would quite honestly, like to see the radio and television paid for by tax money and regulated by citizens. TV should be a public utility. Not "run" by the Government though, perhaps watched over by a citizens action group or something. I have a lot of ideas, I am a bit short on the actual implementation of them though.

Thats why I am bouncing the ideas off you folks.

I think I rambled on, did this make any sense at all?

[Toucano]

5. They want to frame the issue

as a choice between isolationism and their view of free-trade.

That simply isn't the case at all.

Fair negotiation is the answer, whereby the US makes trade agreements on a individual basis and takes into account the individual circumstances regarding the goods in question, the currency practices of the nation in question, the environmental standards, and the labor conditions.

For example, Sen. DeWine wants to add Haiti to the Caribbean trade agreement so that textiles produced there will be able to be brought to the US without tariffs.

Well that would be nice if some Haitians pooled their resources and opened up a plant, bought raw materials on the open market, employed people at a fair market wage, and produced goods of value. Cool! Free-trade works, you'd say.

But that won't be what happens. A multi-national corporation, formerly based in the US, but now operating from a post office box in Belize, will view the slave wages and the lack of regulation in Haiti as a great opportunity to go from 6 billion dollars in profit to 6.2 billion dollars in profit, increase the value of their stock and make millions for their CEO's portfolio.

Since workers in their Malaysian plants are getting a little uppity demanding fair compensation and safe working environments with reasonable hours, they'll close their operations there, and relocate to Haiti. Using their extensive capital, they will force any local entrepreneurs out of the market.

They'll produce a pair of shoes, let's say, with their total cost of production around $1.00 per pair. In Malaysia, it was costing them $1.15. When they left South Carolina, decades before, it was costing them $2.00 per pair.

Wal-Mart will buy the shoes for $2.50 each and sell them for $5.98 to US consumers. Since the US consumer is coping with stagnant wages, a much higher tax burden, and the high cost of prescription drugs, they'll buy the Wal-Mart shoes for $5.98 because the independent shoe store is asking $7.99 for the exact same pair.

Of course, the independent shoe store paid $6.00 for the same pair because they bought them from a wholesaler who wasn't buying as many pairs as Wal-Mart and had to pay $3.50 for each pair. The wholesaler was lucky to get that price, since most of his customers have closed up their shops because they couldn't compete with the superstores. Soon, he'll retire though, and collect his social security. He just has to hang on a few more years.

And the economic misery of the free-trade cycle is almost complete.

Just factor in the $6.50 per hour the Wal-Mart cashier is now paid after the independent store she was working at closed. It wasn't that much better, but they hired and trained her when no one else would. It was close to her apartment, so she could walk to work and didn't need a car. They always let her leave when her shift was over, too.

Of course, since Wal-Mart gets to keep the sales tax (part of a deal they made for locating in her town), the county doesn't have money to fund the head-start program her daughter was going to attend (the independent retailer sent the full tax collected to the state and county).

It's okay, though. She's moved back in with her parents now, so they can provide the childcare she needs. So much for the "golden years", but hey, family is family. The rent she pays them, helps a lot since her father's pension was nixed after the bankruptcy of his former company. She even gets to hear her father reminisce about the old days when he made $8.00 an hour at the textile mill. Twenty years ago.

Yeah! Globalization for all!

[NorthernSpy]

6. strict neutrality: an idea whose time has come!

We're not going to get peace or peace of mind until we:

1. get rid of neocon politics and re-adopt our old stance of strict neutrality in world affairs (but for real this time -- no little outbreaks of gun-boat diplomacy on the side);

and

2. junk all neoliberal economic policy.


Mary