Who's running things, really? Obama? It only appears that way.Submitted by ronb28135 on Sat, 02/22/2014 - 13:24
It's not a zero-sum world There is nothing inevitable about globalisation. Governments have put up barriers before—with disastrous consequences during the 1930s—and could do so again. So it is alarming when America, the mainstay of an open global economy, gives off isolationist signals.
Do you detect a sustained if low-key note of irritation in this text? This unusual Economist article seems a bit more pointed than most, almost like a message. Three observations ...
First, that the internationalist community is panicking – at least a bit – that things are not moving as fast as they ought to. "There is nothing inevitable about free trade," according to the article. That's a comforting thought for us, but not to The Economist.
Second, we note the statement, "Mr Obama did little to promote free trade during his first term." Does this perhaps put Obama on notice? He is said to be doing more in his second term but the tone of the article is decidedly unenthusiastic and even disapproving.
Finally, the article states that it is "alarming when America ... gives off isolationist signals."
This is especially strong language. Using code words, The Economist is seeking the reversal of the republican trend that began with Ron Paul and the tea party and has only increased in strength since then.
This is at least a yelp in anger and one Obama might do well to consider seriously. From what we understand, when Richard Nixon (possibly) ignored the growing irritation of the banking community regarding free trade, he soon found himself in front of a helicopter waving farewell.