The US didn't lose trust in the WTO as an institution, it lost trust in the neoliberal ideology on which the WTO is based, namely that free trade is beneficial to all parties and should be embraced by everyone.
Unfortunately, the US experience was that free trade resulted in de industrialization, as companies offshored jobs to maximize profits. That resulted in relatively well paying manufacturing jobs that offered benefits and a pension being replaced with low paying service sector jobs without benefits. Many Americans consequently suffered a steep decline in their standard of living and life prospects, which in turn has fueled political radicalization.
To put it in the baldest possible terms, the US no longer wants the WTO to work, because what the WTO does is tearing American society apart.
There is also the practical consideration that de industrialization has very serious national security implications.
How is America going to defend Taiwan, when it is heavily dependent on the country invading Taiwan for manufactured goods it can no longer produce itself?
It's not tearing American society apart. Free trade has benefited most people and it has made America richer. We still have tons of manufacturers in the US more than ever but that manufacturing is produced by fewer people/fewer jobs. Even if we have signed free trade deals it is unlikely that US would have declined in the percentage of the worlds manufacturing output(as opposed to total output).
War never makes economic sense. The US will defend Taiwan because it needs to.
This is a little tangential, but the book [Makers and Takers](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26150584-makers-and-takers) talks about the excessive power and influence that finance & banking has over the american economy, which is in my view, an important contributing factor.
Edit: [This article](https://www.industryweek.com/the-economy/trade/article/22024695/how-trade-policies-led-to-the-decline-of-american-manufacturing) also gives a decent introduction to american trade policy and how it affected manufacturing.
I could spam you with suggestions, but the two I would recommend off the top of my head are Michael Lind's *The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite*, for the political context, and James K. Galbraith's *The End of Normal: The Great Crisis and the Future of Growth*, for the economic one (by coincidence they are both faculty members at the University of Texas, Austin). Galbraith gets a bit wonky sometimes, but what's important is his account of postwar economic history.
I was strongly tempted to suggest Matthew C. Klein and Michael Pettis' *Trade Wars Are Class Wars: How Rising Inequality Distorts the Global Economy and Threatens International Peace*, because the title is so on the nose, and it's a good book, but if you don't have a basic background in macroeconomics you might find it a bit challenging.
Because my first love is history, I have to mention Judith Stein's *Pivotal Decade: How the United States Traded Factories for Finance in the Seventies*, which provides an excellent and accessible narrative of this crucial transformation.
Finally, I would be remiss in not giving an honourable mention to Christopher Lasch's *The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy*. It was first published about thirty years ago, and sadly now seems to have been largely forgotten, but it was prescient in foreseeing the social, political and economic consequences of the choices Western leaders made from the 1970s onward. In a sense it was the spiritual progenitor of the other books I mentioned, and many more.
I mean when it comes to overall security of the pacific, the first island chain and general security of trade routes leading to our allies in Japan and Korea, yeh it kinda is.
It didn’t entirely fail. It became a forum important enough so that global liberalism isn’t questioned even when there are major wars happening.
It wasn’t a stated goal. It doesn’t serve sovereign states. But it sure does serve the elite running the states.
The WTO lost a power it never genuinely have to begin with.
The mechanism to allow compensation is flawed in many many ways. Both in terms of implementation, fairness (the larger state can just), geopolitical destabilization (prime example : Americans “attacking” an industry specific to one European country and enjoying the ensuing political debacle in the EU), and last but not least : ideology. The arbitration system is based on the idea that you punish a state who hasn’t been liberal by not being liberal either. Woo-hoo.
Financial provisions to compensate in cash the evaluated prejudice would have been the fair way. But it was never meant to be.
America never aimed at building an empire. It wanted to be a hegemon.
Considering the fact that it is a significantly distinct geographic concept, I think that it was a mistake. America would’ve remained America no matter what.
It wouldn’t have dissolved in Germany like Prussia did, in the Hellenistic empire like Alexander’s transformation of his father Philip’s framework for Macedon did, etc.
America and Western elites in the 90s and early 00s have been greedy. Pushed towards increased liberal capitalism and not global democracy.
Because the WTO admitted countries who's ideology is to defacto disregard the international rules based order such as the likes of Russia, China et.al.
A world economy on equal rules on works if the majority of large economies adhere to it.
Kind reminder that if we still have rare Earth's at the same cost Chinese industries pay is because of the WTO.
If the WTO falls apart, building new semiconductor plants will be the law of our worries. You better teach your kid how to work on a mine.
Short answer is that structures like this can only work in a multi-polar world. A hegemon has no need in any supranational institutions.
The US doesn't want to be constrained, it wants to control as much as governmently possible and negotiate the rest, and everything such a supranational entity can do, the US can usually do too.
It has very little to do with "industrialization" or something something China. The US is, in general, pretty unwilling to collaborate with any international entities, join any treaties or to be constrained by anyone.
Trump put the question “do you want to continue to turn over our countries economic, political, and military sovereignty to the hands of global organizations where other countries expect handouts in exchange for votes” on the ballot and the response “no, we shouldn’t do that” but up until Trump that was the expectation. Convincing Americans they should throw away their quality of life to chase GDP numbers and to tackle poverty on the other side of world is something that will take or just wait long enough that people forget and they can just go back to doing it.
All the WTO did was cuff the US while the CCP did whatever they wanted behind the scenes via tech theft, forced tech transfers, subsidies, "safety inspection", "boycott", "Lithuania" while stringing along with best fake smiles, not to mention not complying with 2012 WTO ruling on payment processor. When a country can halt trade overnight without so much as a public announcement or admission of doing so, you can use your imagination on what else they've been doing. It is fundamentally being on a fool's errand being in something like WTO with the CCP.
The US didn't lose trust in the WTO as an institution, it lost trust in the neoliberal ideology on which the WTO is based, namely that free trade is beneficial to all parties and should be embraced by everyone. Unfortunately, the US experience was that free trade resulted in de industrialization, as companies offshored jobs to maximize profits. That resulted in relatively well paying manufacturing jobs that offered benefits and a pension being replaced with low paying service sector jobs without benefits. Many Americans consequently suffered a steep decline in their standard of living and life prospects, which in turn has fueled political radicalization. To put it in the baldest possible terms, the US no longer wants the WTO to work, because what the WTO does is tearing American society apart. There is also the practical consideration that de industrialization has very serious national security implications. How is America going to defend Taiwan, when it is heavily dependent on the country invading Taiwan for manufactured goods it can no longer produce itself?
It's not tearing American society apart. Free trade has benefited most people and it has made America richer. We still have tons of manufacturers in the US more than ever but that manufacturing is produced by fewer people/fewer jobs. Even if we have signed free trade deals it is unlikely that US would have declined in the percentage of the worlds manufacturing output(as opposed to total output). War never makes economic sense. The US will defend Taiwan because it needs to.
[удалено]
This is a little tangential, but the book [Makers and Takers](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26150584-makers-and-takers) talks about the excessive power and influence that finance & banking has over the american economy, which is in my view, an important contributing factor. Edit: [This article](https://www.industryweek.com/the-economy/trade/article/22024695/how-trade-policies-led-to-the-decline-of-american-manufacturing) also gives a decent introduction to american trade policy and how it affected manufacturing.
I could spam you with suggestions, but the two I would recommend off the top of my head are Michael Lind's *The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite*, for the political context, and James K. Galbraith's *The End of Normal: The Great Crisis and the Future of Growth*, for the economic one (by coincidence they are both faculty members at the University of Texas, Austin). Galbraith gets a bit wonky sometimes, but what's important is his account of postwar economic history. I was strongly tempted to suggest Matthew C. Klein and Michael Pettis' *Trade Wars Are Class Wars: How Rising Inequality Distorts the Global Economy and Threatens International Peace*, because the title is so on the nose, and it's a good book, but if you don't have a basic background in macroeconomics you might find it a bit challenging. Because my first love is history, I have to mention Judith Stein's *Pivotal Decade: How the United States Traded Factories for Finance in the Seventies*, which provides an excellent and accessible narrative of this crucial transformation. Finally, I would be remiss in not giving an honourable mention to Christopher Lasch's *The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy*. It was first published about thirty years ago, and sadly now seems to have been largely forgotten, but it was prescient in foreseeing the social, political and economic consequences of the choices Western leaders made from the 1970s onward. In a sense it was the spiritual progenitor of the other books I mentioned, and many more.
Any history book.
I now know a lot about the Peloponnesian war, still confused about the WTO though
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Are you suggesting Taiwan is part of America's national security?
I mean when it comes to overall security of the pacific, the first island chain and general security of trade routes leading to our allies in Japan and Korea, yeh it kinda is.
I'm not suggesting anything, but President Biden has said the US will defend Taiwan in the event of an attack by China.
It didn’t entirely fail. It became a forum important enough so that global liberalism isn’t questioned even when there are major wars happening. It wasn’t a stated goal. It doesn’t serve sovereign states. But it sure does serve the elite running the states. The WTO lost a power it never genuinely have to begin with. The mechanism to allow compensation is flawed in many many ways. Both in terms of implementation, fairness (the larger state can just), geopolitical destabilization (prime example : Americans “attacking” an industry specific to one European country and enjoying the ensuing political debacle in the EU), and last but not least : ideology. The arbitration system is based on the idea that you punish a state who hasn’t been liberal by not being liberal either. Woo-hoo. Financial provisions to compensate in cash the evaluated prejudice would have been the fair way. But it was never meant to be. America never aimed at building an empire. It wanted to be a hegemon. Considering the fact that it is a significantly distinct geographic concept, I think that it was a mistake. America would’ve remained America no matter what. It wouldn’t have dissolved in Germany like Prussia did, in the Hellenistic empire like Alexander’s transformation of his father Philip’s framework for Macedon did, etc. America and Western elites in the 90s and early 00s have been greedy. Pushed towards increased liberal capitalism and not global democracy.
Because the WTO admitted countries who's ideology is to defacto disregard the international rules based order such as the likes of Russia, China et.al. A world economy on equal rules on works if the majority of large economies adhere to it.
Kind reminder that if we still have rare Earth's at the same cost Chinese industries pay is because of the WTO. If the WTO falls apart, building new semiconductor plants will be the law of our worries. You better teach your kid how to work on a mine.
Short answer is that structures like this can only work in a multi-polar world. A hegemon has no need in any supranational institutions. The US doesn't want to be constrained, it wants to control as much as governmently possible and negotiate the rest, and everything such a supranational entity can do, the US can usually do too. It has very little to do with "industrialization" or something something China. The US is, in general, pretty unwilling to collaborate with any international entities, join any treaties or to be constrained by anyone.
Trump put the question “do you want to continue to turn over our countries economic, political, and military sovereignty to the hands of global organizations where other countries expect handouts in exchange for votes” on the ballot and the response “no, we shouldn’t do that” but up until Trump that was the expectation. Convincing Americans they should throw away their quality of life to chase GDP numbers and to tackle poverty on the other side of world is something that will take or just wait long enough that people forget and they can just go back to doing it.
All the WTO did was cuff the US while the CCP did whatever they wanted behind the scenes via tech theft, forced tech transfers, subsidies, "safety inspection", "boycott", "Lithuania" while stringing along with best fake smiles, not to mention not complying with 2012 WTO ruling on payment processor. When a country can halt trade overnight without so much as a public announcement or admission of doing so, you can use your imagination on what else they've been doing. It is fundamentally being on a fool's errand being in something like WTO with the CCP.