The Lend Lease Act was set up by President Roosevelt who said he would not let the dollar get in his way to help the allies in World War 2. He pumped up the industrial might of the U.S. prior to declaring war and supplied England , France and Russia with goods. It demonstrated that you can not do business with people who do not have money. You first have to find a way to grow money in some value added fashion. As we know, the U.S. came out of World War 2 with the most awesome industrial power the world has ever known. It backed up the Marshall Plan which restored local value added economies in Europe and Asia. It was economically artifical but it worked for a long time. However, for some reason in 1956, the U.S. Federal Government itself sponsored the moving of factories outside the USA which later evolved into what is called Free Trade today. It was really all about moving production from place to place for the sake of the cheapest labor possible. We chopped up the Golden Goose that layed the Golden Eggs. Who said we had to compete like this- see http://ezinarticles.com/?id=541566

However, with Free Trade and Globalization, people without money are used for selfish interests. The only variable in the process is the cost of labor. Workers are traded on a world trading block to compete down to the lowest levels of wage slave and even child labor. Reverse Globalization is an odd thing to call this attack on the value of work relating to workers’ dignity.

For more information, see Tapart News and Art that Talks at http://tapsearch.com/tapartnews and http://tapsearch.com/flatworld from the perspective of the streets of USA where human dignity in the workday has been compromised.

The question I would like to know the answer to is when will the slide begin and will it end with one world wide currency? It is a small planet and there is only one species that deals in money.

Macro Man: Thanks for the discussion. My intention is not that the US should beggar its neighbours, although I concede that it would be portrayed as this by some on the receiving end (eg the French!)…..I am not suggesting that the US has any specific exchange rate targets, for example. It is more that the US state should do some of the overseas saving that the US private sector is not doing (unlike in Europe).

RE has suggest one form of beggar-thy-neighbour policy, US intervention to weaken the $. For better (or, more to the point) for worse, the government has decided on another beggar-thy-neighbour strategy, one that is more likely to win votes next autumn.

A common standard is most likely to be reached in some sort of multilateral forum. Unfortunately, the largest surplus holders are either not members (G7) or marginalized (IMF) at the obvious options. It will be curious to see if the IMF tries to grab the reins next month like they appeared to do last April…by now all of the bilateral are completed, n’est-ce pas?

Screw WTO, It’s Do-It-Yourself Time.

It might not be so much a case of reverse globalization as a case of putting globalization on hold. With current anti-foreigner / anti-trade sentiment at elevated levels stateside, there’s a fat chance that the likes of China and the Mideast oilers will be allowed to buy US firms.

“The U.S. Commerce Department decided today to levy new duties on imports from China to compensate for Chinese subsidies to exporters, reversing more than two decades of practices.”

Globalisation is truly at risk.

Now consider that harsh language accusations against China (or posturing as victims of those who run a trade surplus) allows politicians and pundits to mess up, use the government to favour special interests, and sink what they claim to protect, “national interest” - [Please remember: there is no obligation for anyone to avoid "global imbalances", "accruing ... FX reserves", or generate "some sort of fundamental misalignment": I think on this RebelEconomist has a good point, politically sensible!] - We live in a free world: we should build up common rules; but some refuse to do so: they are the kings of double standard.

Gentlemen, since this is primarily a website for economists, I ask you to join me in condemning the protectionnist approach of Mr Bush (and Mrs Clinton too, on Nafta). Let’s put our differences aside, let’s spare our harshest words to use them against this misleading populism.

Thankyou!