I just returned from an hour-long chat with Professor Gable which was very interesting and enlightening. I went to discuss with him the cultural points of my argument, and we ended up talking at length about many different aspects of the entire topic, from Little Italy to David Ricardo. First, I brought up something which he had talked about earlier in the semester, that is how people form bonds based on arbitrarily set borders. This is the basis of the idea of nationalism which I am trying to debunk. People tend to categorize themselves for a number of reasons, and these connections are often irrational but not thought about. Of course, he reminded me, there are other types of bonds than the territorial ones which make up nation-states. For instance, the Catholic Church is an example of a non-territorial sovereignty. People fundamentally connect to a nation-state to be functioning members of society, and other bonds are out of emotion or sentiment. Quite quickly, those nation-state bonds become bonds of sentiment as well. We become Americans because we were born in America, but we soon also identify as Americans because we love apple pie and baseball, because we’re Americans. The territorial identification is not irrational, at least not in today’s society, but it can certainly lead to irrational thinking.

I’m not arguing to forsake our nationality to become world citizens, but I am arguing that it’s possible to love one’s country while also being a world citizen. As international collaboration and interaction becomes easier, identifying with one’s country becomes less a fundamental necessity for functionality. This is exactly what will cause the death of irrational nationalist thinking. Right now, this progress is being hampered as war and fear politics force upon us a deeper national commitment, driven by either fear, guilt, or pride. If not for functionality, than for what other rational purpose are we bound to those born within the same border? Because they’re human, but just as human as a foreigner is. And this, I think, is where we will move. It is possible to retain national identity as global citizens. We Americans should know this concept better than anyone. During high periods of immigration, and even now today, people from all over to America to look for work. Communities popped up, such as Little Italy, in which people who all considered themselves Americans still celebrated their cultural heritage. As such, it’s not unthinkable that connection to nation-states can become more sentimental than pragmatic, and we consider ourselves to be humans with an American heritage rather than Americans who need to compete as a team against other groups of humans.

All people have a natural tendency to categorize themselves somehow, and as previously stated, it’s not always territorial- that’s simply just the most basic and practical bond in an unflat world. Other people can commit themselves more to an organization, such as an executive who travels all over the world and interacts with many different types of people. He may no longer consider America to be anything more than a sentimental rooting and a place in which his company must be headquartered. That’s not to say that he’s renounced America entirely, but just that he considers himself a citizen of his company for all practical purposes, and is only sentimentally tied to the United States. Another example also illustrates the prominence and irrationality of collectivist thinking: a Mexican immigrant comes to America looking for a job. He’s generally shunned by the public for being an intruder, someone sub-human (sub-American) who’s going to steal an American’s job. By working, he supports his family, but others oppose his opportunity to work because immigrant labor is detrimental to American solidarity and he’s accused of not being altruistic. Well, he is, just not to the collective nation. His primary bond is to his family, and even though he’s an American, he’s not working for America, nor should he. Collectivist thinking is dangerous, as it leads to irrational xenophobic prejudices and barriers to hamper the recognition of humanity outside of the collective.

Beyond the hypothetical rhetoric, he shared with me some of his experiences in less developed countries. We’ve already discussed how educational systems must be formed for a people to prosper, but what we’ve not considered is, what if that education can’t be put to use? In Guinnea-Bissau, he found that there was a functioning, if horribly underprovided, educational system. It produced literary citizens, but there was nothing for them to do. Guinnea-Bissau does not have an educated service industry for anyone to work in, nor is there a demand for one. That sort of higher market is necessary for a nation to raise its standards, but one had simply not developed and educated children ended up making shoes. How does a skilled labor market develop in a manufacturing country? How did it develop in China? I’ll be sure to take a look at that.

Through a lot of the discussion we touched on some economic questions and talked about Thomas Friedman and David Ricardo. One of the interesting things we talked about was how a strong rooting to national identity and belonging can inspire the sort of protectionist policies which advocates of the global market try to fight against, and how both of our political parties contribute to that in one way or another. Democrats come right out and attack outsourcers for ruining the American economy and people, even though the numbers tend to disagree. Republicans have a much more indirect way to shoot themselves in the foot. Though they support global economic policy, the way in which the Bush administration has promoted blind Americanism also creates xenophobia and a distaste of the foreign, causing Republican supporters to cry out against good old American countrymen being replaced by dem darn macacas. Again, I’m not telling you about the general philosophy of America, indeed, the truth of it is heading in the opposite direction of what I’d like. I’m telling you about the general philosophy and mindset that America should have which would be most condusive to the global free market and development of all nations involved.

It’s 3 AM and what am I thinking about? Partially, I’m horribly jealous of Stephen for being able to sleep so soundly. I’m also noticing the hair leaving me to be with the comforter on top of my head and remembering my family’s tragic history of baldness. But mostly I’m regretting steering so far away from my original expert study topic. Now this may sound like a change of topic yet again, but it’s really not. It just now dawned on me that the topic I was originally interested in and the topic I settled on are very compatible. I at first wanted to discuss the death of nationalism, specifically economic nationalism, but decided against that as it would be too hard to gather any actual facts for and is much more about philosophy than economics. I settled on discussing the international free market and how it benefits both us and China. But here, deep in the night, it hit me: these two topics are more or less the same thing, just taking the completely philosophical and completely economic perspectives. So really, my original idea can be a very researchable and concrete one when combined with my final idea. The Death of Economic Nationlism: The Development of an International Free Market and How It Benefits All Economics Involved. Not very catchy, I know.

As far as economic history and theories go, I’ve got a big ol’ stack of books on my desk filled with Post-It notes, and my own copy of David Ricardo’s Principles of Political Economy and Taxation is being sent to me right now. Yes, I know the library and Professor Greenlaw both probably have it, but I just like having my own books. Besides, it matches my Wealth of Nations. The Economic Report of the President, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and various other Googled resources have proven very helpful for solid facts and figures. As for the more human, philosophical side (because the philosophy of the people is very important in determining the economic system), I’m planning on hopefully talking to my anthropology professor, Professor Gable, tomorrow (or today, rather). I’d like to interview him briefly about his thoughts on nationalism, egalitarianism, and other social ideas. I think that in order to really grasp the full importance of either of these, you need them both together.

On a sidenote, I recently went through a long customer service experience in regards to my credit card, and was switched between two different Visa departments, in New Delhi and Maine. It only reinforced what I’ve noticed every time I’ve known to where I’ve been speaking: customer service is, in general, much better in India. Most Americans I’ve talked to are discourteous, pretentious, and generally unhelpful, while Indians tend to be quite the opposite. Maybe it’s really not just the money we outsource for.

Quite simply, globalization is a threat to our weaknesses, and an opportunity for our strengths. If the global market is an unstoppable development acting for the eventual good of everyone, our nation must inevitably become a part of it. If we resist, there will be dire consequences far worse than any pain that joining the world economy could do. If we embrace globalization, however, there will be great benefits and opportunities in the long run. True, there is the potential for some suffering at first, especially in the non-skilled labor force. There is and will continue to be opposition from those whose jobs are in danger, as well as those whose supposed patriotism makes them cry “Buy American!” Globalization is already happening, it is the future, and it is the only decision to come to given both the economic and philosophical ideals of America.

I’ll begin with philosophical and ideological reasons, because the mindset of the people is the mindset of the country, and in effect the direction of the economy. America was founded on the ideas of individualism, liberty, and egalitarianism. The notion that we should “Buy American,” purely philosophically, promotes collectivism. It encourages us to accept what we may not want for the alleged greater good for the community as a whole. This, it seems to me, is the opposite of individualism and freedom of choice. Individualism means that people have their own personal identity and worth, rather than being part of a whole. The idea that we have a duty to serve our fellow countrymen purely out of nationalism is a collectivist and thoroughly un-American one.

That’s not to say that we shouldn’t buy American, but simply that we shouldn’t buy American because we feel that we have a duty to. Liberty means that we have the freedom to choose a Japanese car over an American one, and furthermore, we have the freedom to make that choice without any guilt cast upon us from a generally collectivist populous. Liberty means that we have the freedom to dissent against, detach from (to an extent), and even hate our own nation and express these thoughts if we wish.

Collectivism breeds bigotry and xenophobia, the enemies of egalitarianism. To feel that any American deserves something more than a foreigner who’s just as good is what’s truly un-American. The American patriot can be a great contradiction, but one that makes perfect sense in terms of liberty and individualism. Being unpatriotic is patriotic, and it is from our own nationalistic thinking that anti-nationalism should be produced. It’s true, these fundamental ideas somewhat blur national lines and nations themselves, but that’s exactly why they’re so compatible with the idea of globalization and so opposed to the philosophy of “Buy American.”

Our nation right now is very comfortable. After World War II, we became the only surviving superpower, breeding a complacency that was only briefly threatened in the Cold War. If globalization is a threat, it’s only a threat to our moral failings. That is, what globalization is doing is forcing us to realize that there are other nations in the world, nations which can compete with our own. Of course, anyone whose comfort is threatened will fight to protect it. That is exactly what the protectionist left is trying to do, and I’d like to end this part with a quote from philosophy professor Dr. Harry Binswanger: “The patriotic advocates of buying American would be shocked to learn that the economic theory underlying their viewpoint is Marxism. In describing the influx of Japanese products and investment, they don’t use the Marxist terminology of “imperialism” and “exploitation,” but the basic idea is the same: capitalistic acts are destructive and free markets will impoverish you. It’s the same anti-capitalist nonsense whether it is used by leftists to attack the United States for its commerce with Latin America or by supposed patriots to attack Japan for its commerce with the United States.

“Contrary to Marxism, one does not benefit from the poverty or incompetence of others. It is in your interest that other men — in every country — be smart, ambitious, and productive, not stupid, lazy, or incompetent… More and better production is good for all men, everywhere. What’s good for Toyota is good for America. That’s individualism, and that’s Americanism.”

I hope I’ve effectively illustrated how American philosophy demands globalization, and now I’ll move on into pure economics and practicality. I feel that I should begin by refuting politicians’ claims as to the great harm that globalization, outsourcing especially, is causing America, as it’s politicians who are calling on Americans to abandon the American philosophy previously discussed. When Greg Mankiw, head of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, stated that “outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade,” there was an enormous outcry from the media and the Democratic party that the Bush administration was supporting the “exporting of jobs” and that American unemployment and poverty was part of his economic plan to benefit the rich.

In the true tradition of media and politics, any hard evidence to support these sensationalist, rabble-rousing claims is very scarce. In the words of Don Luskin, Chief Investment Officer for Trend Macrolytics, “All the sensational numbers that are thrown around all the time in the media are nothing more than forecasts by various consultants… Forrester Research estimates that 3.3 million white-collar jobs will move overseas by 2015… Let’s get real. Suppose Forrester is right, that 3.3 million white-collar jobs will move overseas by 2015. That’s eleven years, folks. That’s 300,000 jobs a year, or 25,000 a month. Today there are 130 million jobs in the United States. So the cost is 2/100 of 1% of jobs each month. Don’t worry about it. On average the US economy generates job growth 10 times that much every month.”

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate fell to 4.4% in October 2006, well below the average since 1948. While it’s true that jobs are being lost in manufacturing and low-skill areas, what no one ever talks about are the new service-oriented jobs which open up at a faster rate than the manufacturing jobs are closing. Just as Mankiw conceded, there is some uncomfortable displacement, but nothing that adversely affects the economy. Average earnings are rising faster than inflation, unemployment is very low, and our economy is growing at a fantastic rate. Why, then, have Democrats shouted so loudly about the dangers of outsourcing? Well as it turns out, Republicans aren’t the only ones who can play up a nonexistent danger for the sake of votes.

What Mankiw was defending was an economic theory that has been accepted for two hundred years: the idea of comparative advantage. Every nation will produce what it can produce best and most efficiently, and everyone benefits. Advancements in India will much more likely help us than harm us. There really isn’t a real question here. The biggest concerns are false ones raised by enemies of the truth: media and politics. The facts, the actual facts, beg to differ with the outcry against globalization. Protectionist policies will destroy us in the long run, but if we choose to uphold our traditional American ideals and embrace the new world, life will end up being much better for everyone around the globe.