The main intrigue of the Trump's era

Don't know if this helps the discussion of part one or even if the link works but her goes
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2017-02-03/russia-china-and-the-usa%E2%80%99s-new-world-disorder

I think these recent events of right wing populism are a sad but necessary event. Basically this is frustration on behalf of the working class in the developed countries, but they still have enough faith in capitalism to propose capitalist solutions. They remember when times were better, jobs were more secure, wages were higher and jobs weren't being outsourced to Asia and Mexico. This is why they fall for vague slogans such as "make America great again" and this is why they support capitalist solutions.

But we know of course that these problems are simply part of the nature of capitalism. Capital will always seek lower wages abroad and more mechanisation at the expense of labour. Capitalist solutions cannot solve these problems. Global capital is a global force and no government, not even Trump's, can control it.

I predict that when he shows that he can't achieve his plans to re-industrialise America and more and more people fall into the ranks of the poor proletariat, right wing populism will be replaced by a left wing populism as people realise that capitalism cannot solve the problems: capitalism is the problem.

The CWO linked text in post No2 is well worth a read providing a much welcome background to Putin's attempts at reversing the Wests gains from the earlier collapse of the old Soviet Union, recent shifts in USA foreign policy in relation to the Middle East including the oft quoted ''pivot to Asia'' initially under Obama and the increased uncertainty and dangers of Trump's 'erratic unilateralism'.

Actually protectionism in the US preceded and accompanied the depression of the 1930s. From the 1830s until WW2 the US pretty much maintained protectionist policies, with tariffs an important source of government revenue.

It was after WW2 that the US turned towards a "free trade" policy, the better to penetrate other markets, based on the fact that the US was the dominant capitalist power. After WW2, revenues from tariffs declined steadily both as a percentage of GDP and as a source of government revenues.

Since 2008, the US has adopted a slew of protectionist measures, none or all of which have accomplished much of anything.

Regarding reindustrialization--- if you mean industrial production, that never "left" the US. Outputs in volumes and value are greater than 30 years ago. If you mean, the return of production that was previously conducted in other countries-- that's an empirical question and we need to see the empirical data to make a judgment. From the little investigation I've conducted into this, I think such a "return" is, like LBJ's Great Society, conspicuous only in its absence (check out the reference to San Francisco 60s bands in that pithy characterization).

Just on this bit, I think it's worth challenging as we should avoid just parroting right-wing propaganda. Not completely sure on the stats regarding the US, but I think it is very unlikely that US jobs have actually "gone overseas". In the UK for example we have had a massive reduction of jobs in manufacturing since the 1970s which is often credited to "off shoring". However that is not actually the case: industrial production is roughly the same as it was in the 70s, but jobs have been slashed by automation. Increased consumption and population growth has led to increased demand for manufactured goods, hence there being more manufacturing in places like China and Mexico as well.

edited to add I have just seen that Artesian has already said this, never mind

Well I think you are correct in pointing out the post-war boom in the West (and Japan) benefiting from a shortage of labour. Also let's not forget that large parts of the global labour force were not on the world market as they are today (i.e. China) so the Western bourgeoisie had no choice but to use their own proletariat for production.

The problem with reindustrialisation, as you say, is the decline in the number of jobs due to automation. This in turn will drive wages down due to a fall in demand for labour. Universal basic income might keep the wolves at bay for a time but surely the entire money system will eventually come crashing down.

I'm not sure how much truth there really is to claims about jobs being lost to automation.

The best indicator of jobs lost to automation is productivity growth, which in the U.S. was actually quite low throughout the 1970s and 80s, was high again between 1995-2005, and is very low currently. Makes sense that jobs would be lost to China which has a devalued currency and weak worker protection laws.

Regardless, as Dean Baker points out, one thing that is overlooked in the whole globalization story is that while workers in the US are now forced to compete with workers in the developing world, there has been no such competition unleashed for lawyers, doctors, or dentists. In order to practice on of those professions in the US one needs a degree or certification from a US school (sometimes Canada is allowed). There is no reason for this other than the fact that lawyers, dentists, and doctors are more powerful politically than manufacturing workers and thus are no subjected to the laws of the free market. The result of course is that the average doctor makes $250,000 a year, and when you go to the ER and the doctor sees you for a total of 5 minutes over a 3 hour period you still have to pay him $600 because he charges $200/hour.

After the Great Depression of the 1930s? After the Great Depression of the 1930s came WW2, making the issue of tariffs moot. After WW2, there was the general movement to the "liberalization" of trade, the reduction of tariffs among capitalist countries. The EU was originally founded on that basis. I don't know what Polanyi is talking about, but GATT was initiated in 1947-- the purpose of which was "the substantial reduction of tariffs and trade barriers..."

The US imposed significant tariffs as industrial capitalism began to emerge in the North, and by 1832, the US South was so paranoid about retaliation by Britain upon cotton exports that South Carolina actually attempted to secede from the Union.

Tariffs were a major contributor to government revenues up until WW1, and the movement towards free trade ran up against the limits of capitalism in the 1920s. Tariffs were increased in 1922 and in 1930 the Smoot Hawley Tariff act was passed, raising tariffs to the second highest assessments ever in US history. This was followed by retaliatory acts from other countries. This was at the beginning of the Depression, not after.

As for Russia, imposing tariffs... not hardly. The Soviet Union maintained a monopoly on foreign trade and determined, on the basis of a supposed "economic plan" what and how much of what was to be imported. These were direct decisions of "central planning" and not "market" decisions where a tariff was imposed to protect emerging industry.

For all that, international trade was a "bit player" in the former Soviet Union.

We have yet to see how real Trump's protectionism is-- tariffs have to be instituted by an act of Congress. Anti- dumping and unfair trade practices duties can be imposed by the US Dept. of Commerce under provision of the 1930 act, but the DOC has to first conduct an investigation and determine that the product is being dumped, and is in fact harming a US industry. Nothing Trump has cited, not Ford or Carrier or BMW or Toyota moving production to Mexico and selling to the US market qualifies as dumping or an unfair trade practice, so Trump's only route is to "jawbone" or go to Congress.

I suspect, like everything else, this protectionism is all bullshit, and public spectacle-- where it is not already simply a reflection of slowing trade, and the old "beggar they neighbor" policy.

In any case, to trigger anti-dumping duties a US corporation has to file a petition with Dept of Commerce. Ford isn't about to file against itself, or against GM, or BMW for that matter.

That certainly is possible, in fact more than possible, but I think the attention should be placed on the forces at work globally that have slowed international trade, and even driven it into contraction.

Just noticed this little reference to a China connection with a different member of the Trump family now in high office:
www.refinery29.uk/2017/04/151866/ivanka-trump-factory-underpaid-workers

Don't take this as an endorsement of any of the Trump family but -

- this is pretty routine throughout the whole of the garment trade, irrespective of brand. You'll be hard pressed to find any company operating in the fashion industry which doesn't operate in the same way. It's hyper exploitative.