lkorrow,
Our monetary system is -- literally -- a Ponzi scheme. You have to start with that and keep it in mind as you explore issues and questions and even definitions such as "capitalism".
How can "capitalism" or "free trade" exist within a Ponzi scheme? If someone encouraged you to participate -- late -- in a Ponzi scheme would you do so? Would you expect, ultimately, everything would be okay or that there would be massive fraud and the majority of the participants would lose everything they put in? Our government regularly warns us to not participate in Ponzi schemes and, in fact, tells us that Ponzi schemes are illegal -- a felony. But what if participation in the Ponzi scheme was made mandatory by the government and, in fact, the government would imprison you if you attempted to NOT participate?
"I suppose globalism's adoption was capitalism at work -- free markets in a utopian sense -- gravitation to the lower cost of goods sold. So reversing it would put us back in a tariff scenario to equalize the field to permit entry locally. Seems like costs would go up, not down, like they were prior to globalization gone wild."
I've answered similar questions before by noting that the central argument for "free trade" is attributed to Ricardo and his "Theory of Comparative Advantage". Briefly, Ricardo logically proved that division of labor and having different parties specialize in what they did best and trade for the other things, in general, benefits all participants. Pretty near all parties lean on Ricardo and his proof, even if they don't know it, in justifying "free trade" and globalization.
However, if you read Ricardo or otherwise research carefully what he wrote you will find that he had some PREMISES underlying his logic. Most notably, he PRESUMED that factors of production (resources and factories and even skill sets) were "sticky" can't couldn't easily be moved. He also presumed that markets would not be tampered with and, therefore, that costs were free to adjust -- up or down -- without interference from governments or other strong-arm organizations such as labor unions. Implicitly he presumed that money was an ASSET, not a marker for debt plus accrued and never possible to repay interest (not possible to pay because when the new money is conjured up it immediately has an interest penalty and thus, mathematically, there never is and never can be enough money in existence to repay BOTH principal AND interest), and couldn't just be conjured up in infinite quantities.
Anyway, Ricardo's PREMISES don't hold and therefore his conclusions don't either. The logical conclusion that "free trade" benefits all parties in general is therefore FALSE.
To repeat: our monetary system is a Ponzi scheme, pure and simple. Mathematically Ponzi schemes can never work; will always defraud later entrants and enrich the folks who set up the Ponzi. This Ponzi scheme is no different it is just bigger -- the biggest Con in the history of the world -- and sanctioned by government. This Ponzi scheme was intended, as are all Ponzi schemes, to transfer wealth from naive and greedy people to the folks who set up the Ponzi. Would you say there is "free trade" or "capitalism" within a Ponzi scheme or that there is merely a pretense, a swindle, a connivance? Would you suppose that "globalism" within a world-wide Ponzi scheme can go on forever when the Ponzi scheme itself obviously cannot? This Ponzi scheme has been going on for 40 years. It is, as I said, the biggest Ponzi the world has ever seen and will ever see. It would have ended a long time ago except that all governments have been co-opted as principals into the scam and forced their citizens, at gun point, to participate.
Do you understand now?
I have come to realize that men are not born to be free. Liberty is a need felt by a small class of people whom nature has endowed with nobler minds than the mass of men. -Napoleon
| 
