The debate on whether U.S. domestic and foreign policy should center on nationalism or globalization has been a long standing one. Before I add my personal opinion to it, I would like to state the advantages and disadvantages of both options and how it woild affect our economy in the long run. Nationalism uses trade protectionism as a basis for its concept. The main objective is to protect domestic resources by deterring foreign trade. This is accomplished through raising tariffs, quotas, and embargoes. It also raises taxes for export subsidies, import licensing, and exchange rates. (Riley)
Initially, people believe that keeping trade domestic benefits the standard of living because it keeps employment high. Unfortunately, there are unforeseen side effects that have damaging results to the economy. One of the biggest factors is quality control. Since competition of the goods and services offered are reduced, there is no real motivation to produce innovative and technology advanced products. In addition, ineffective factions of business are safe from being edged out by more competent foreign rivals. In the long run, protectionism diminishes the value of a country’s products and cripples its economy.
Globalization, on the other hand, is the opposite of nationalism. It is defined as the “ongoing process of integration of regional economies into a global network of communication and execution.” (Lovekar) There are many advocates and protestors of globalization. Supporters state how global trade raises GDP, employment, and per capita income for citizens of developing countries. Competition also raises the standard for good, quality products at reasonable prices ultimately benefitting the consumer.
Employment, or lack thereof, is one of the hot button topics in the debate over globalization. Some believe that outsourcing manufacturing, a key part of globalization, causes a loss of jobs domestically. Despite the steady cash flow from...