Nationalism and trade have always historically existed. Nation states retain their sovereignty in the globe, but they import/export goods with other nations. Unless you want to be North Korea, trading is essential to your economy.
So what about these regional trade agreements? Do they sacrifice a nation's sovereignty, or do they simply outline an agreement for making trade possible?
For example, the USMC agreement. Does it contain any rules that sacrifice our ability to govern our own nation, and lay any foundation for globalism? Or is the trade agreement necessary in order to make trade possible?
There seems to be a narrow line between trade agreements and globalist policies. It seems NAFTA was an abuse of a so-called "trade agreement" in order to enrich certain groups of globalist wealthy elite at the expense of America. Whereas the USMC seems to be an agreement aimed at the profit of America and ordinary Americans, and therefore more nationalistic.
What are your thoughts?
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 22385459? ago
Trade agreements in principle are fine. They start out as ideal at the level of barter (goods for goods) and go down from there. It's always best to produce from within when possible, most things that require trade are luxury goods anyway (for example spices that even today are difficult to grow outside their native climate). Do you really need cinnamon that badly?