We live in isolationist and nationalist times. The long-term and subtle reward for open borders and global cooperation is easily vilified by the short-term rewards from closing them.

But yes, I agree that people in favor of globalization shouldn't use the same demagogue tactics that are employed by populist nationalists. Because, no, the world won't come crashing down just because a country leaves the EU, refuses to pay the UN, dissolves NATO, leaves the UK or whatnot - and it is silly to suggest it. And people only accept silly lies about stuff that make them angry, and a slow and steady destabilization of global relations makes very few people angry.

Also, you'll always lose when you engage in the type of rhetoric your opponent specializes in. You'll lose anyway of course, but at least when the day comes that the toll has been paid for isolationist nationalism it will be rather easy to see that it was, generally speaking, a pretty bad idea.

Only in the delusional world that exists inside of your head.

Im interested, what is the long term and subtle reward for open borders?
Also, Im not sure that being a part of the EU qualifies as global co-operation, necessarily.

Stronger economic growth, less inequality, and fewer wars.

Im not sure it follows. Do you have any evidence?

What does "less inequality" mean?( yes, I know what the words mean, but it may be that you mean it in a certain context, or have an idea of what you mean, so I want to be sure I understand)

I think you have a historical contradiction implicit in the above statement. Stronger economic growth can stimulate wars (and foster imbalance), not make them less attractive or less numerous. China's growth in the last 25 years is a current example.

The rather amorphous term globalization is also somewhat overused today. The process has been ongoing since the late 1400's and previous to that Arab and Viking traders were on the forefront of global trading and economies, for example. It is a continuum, not something that can be extracted in isolation for some current politicalize agenda. The talking head pundits on TV love the term. For the very reason that it is somewhat nebulous and thus can be flinged out for the masses to chew on at every opportunity.

Isn't that similar to what's happening in the US election? Both sides lie, both are unpopular, and a lot people are voting for other reasons than that they actually like the candidates, and I think some people are voting for Trump because no mater what an A-hole he is, he represents their anti-establishment feelings. They're protest votes.

The ulterior motives were primarily to do with what was best for the people leading the Leave campaign, how they might improve their own positions, although it ended up working out quite badly for most of them. Similarly, I think Trump is in it purely for the power and he'll say what ever it takes, and do what ever he needs to to, to win the election, including pandering to the evangelicals, promising to protect their beliefs and running with a fundamentalist who doesn't believe in Evolution and would turn America into a christian theocracy.

I'll just point out that rhetoric like this sounds just as stupid coming from a liberal as it does when a conservative Christian complains about how the liberals is going to turn the US into a godless nation.

Classy.

Yup. Bernie was too.

Besides Muslims are scary i think trump is a protest against the establishment republicans who they feel have failed them in both losing our jobs to China and the culture wars since the sixties.

Pence is bad but he hasn't said he would do away with democracy. He would just do the normal right wing Christian things afaik. Like no gay marriage, no abortion, get God back in schools, paint in God we trust and the ten commandments everywhere. He still lets us non Christians vote.

To use an actual example, the EU's charter of human rights was very progressive and forced a very large shift all over Europe.

In my country for example (Norway), the bill made it so that the public school system could not teach a specific religious doctrine as true. This because the charter guarantees religious freedom. When I was a kid Christian classes in the public school were mandatory and taught as true, we had to participate in sermons, we sang psalms and in our local school many of our teachers actually came from the local Pentecostal movement. At the centre of the shift stood actual legal cases that were brought up before EU courts after being appealed beyond our own supreme court.

Another example; today the charter stands at the forefront of criticism (and possible future sanctions) of countries like Poland when the cabinet violates the the country's constitution to try and force political influence over the country's courts.

This aspect of the charter has also undoubtedly helped ease religious tension between countries and nations in Europe. Other examples can be progression in right to free speech and the right to free press, which has forced eastern European countries wanting to participate in the EU markets to progress on these issues after the fall of the iron curtain.

How can it not be part of a politicized agenda? Hardly nothing is more politicized than a sovereign state's relation with other states, almost every action and reaction in such a relationship is in effect an extension of political will. The word doesn't exist in some idealized limbo where relationship between states are "all dandy" until someone ruins them. Good relationships between countries must be attained and maintained, this is easier when states share some modicum of ideals.

You are also confusing "broad" with "nebulous". Globalization means integration of culture, economy and politics across sovereign state borders - which even though a massively broad concept - is not at all ill-defined or unclear. That you choose to view at such as, so that you can tell yourself that anyone using the term is trying lord intellectually over people, is on you.

I dont think the EU imposing some bill is the same as open borders. I dont think that separation of church and state comes from having open borders.

If US politics is any guide, people seem to approve of larger jurisdictions when the larger jurisdiction does something they like, and approve of smaller jurisdictions (US states, EU countries, etc) when the larger jurisdiction does something they don't like

The acceptance of a charter / bill / agreement than transcends sovereign state law (meaning it can be tried in a court outside the sovereign entity) is pretty much the ultimate example of "open borders", so I couldn't disagree more. The next step would be the surrender of sovereign status (union / federation / merger).

To put it into perspective (and comparison), the UN declaration of human rights is not legally binding, even for consenting states. The EU charter of rights is an incredible example of how powerful open border policy can be and the advances it can lead to.

Well, anything that can be sold in as "lack of control" can be used to make people worried and angry.

Ultimately it's just good old risk perception fallacy. People are less risk adverse towards avoiding negatives than they are towards attaining positives. A clever demagogue would then always say something like "A costs us X, we should B" instead of "We should B, to gain Y". The 2016 US presidential campaigns are pretty much terrific examples of this.

But to return to globalization; Cooperation across borders has a price. It's therefore easy to vilify it, but there is very little historical credence that supports closed borders as good for prosperity and stability, quite the opposite.

Not that I think the UK (since the Brexit was mentioned in this thread) will become isolationist, the UK has been heavily in favor of free trade agreements for the last 4-5 decades... far more so than continental Europe. And the ultimate irony is that I suspect the UK will ultimately have to become far more progressive towards globalization now than it ever had to be as a EU member state. Shifts towards mercantilism would hurt the UK bad, because even though it is a massively large economy it is still small compared to the EU... so it will be severely hurt by a global economy based on tariffs and smaller trade agreements. To clarify the last segment, I think a lot of people actually don't grasp that a "global" economy not based on free trade principles is competitive pretty much by default.

Im dont think either of the pictures you posted illustrate how Trump is a bad person( if that was your intention)

The both reinforce negative memes about trump.

Sure. Let's take economic growth first. Here's a paper from Harvard economist Lant Pritchett that estimates that removing all immigration barriers would lead to an increase in globlal GDP of $65 trillion. Michael Clemens estimated it would lead to a global GDP increase of between 67-147%. Here's a NBER paper from John Kennan that models an open border world as equivalent to a doubling of income for less developed economies.

It's true that changes in economic growth can lead to changes in the balance of powers, and so lead to conflict. However, this is true whatever the level of economic growth (positive, negative, or flat). The relevant question is whether a high growth environment is more likely to lead to war than a low or flat growth environment. Here I see no reason to think that higher growth would lead to more war.

If anything, your example indicates the opposite. During the Maoist no-growth era in China, we fought a serious proxy war with them in Vietnam. After Deng Xiaoping, we've had much closer and more amicable relations. Or take Russia. NATO has moved closer to war in part because of a promotion of belligerent nationalism by Putin in order to put down domestic unrest caused, in part, by slowing economic growth.

Anyway, the main argument for my view is that greater global trade and more liberal labor markets have decreased the likelihood of war by greatly increasing its cost. As more of a country's economic growth depends on international markets, that country also loses more from the chaos that results from war.

Sure, there is a spiritual connection of sorts to those early traders. But those Viking and Arab economies did not compete with the entire world in a way that most major companies and economies do today.

I dont know enough about economics to comment in general. But I note that he starts off by talking about freedom of trade, not of movement. And, while he talks about freedom of movement a little later on, he is not talking about what we have now, which is freedom of movement without consequence.

He also says that Marx was Keynes" great predecessor" , which makes anything he said immediately suspect.

Right. He starts by drawing a contrast between how we've had a liberalization of capital and goods markets, but not of the labor market. Thus, further increases in liberalization of capital or goods has relatively modest increases in global GDP compared to increases in liberalization of the labor market. Here's the specific passage I was referring to:

He says that true global open borders (which is freedom of movement without consequences) would lead to a doubling of global GDP, and that even more modest increases would have correspondingly smaller, but still very significant increases in GDP.

Marx will often be listed as one of the great economists of the nineteenth century. Eg here's wiki:

So I'm not sure that saying he was a great predecessor to Keynes much about the author's credibility.

Considering the left ward intellectualism of academia one cannot be surprised as to the lionization of Marx but the proof is in the pudding. The salient difficulty with Marxist socialism is the abdication of the individual man; his singular value only allowed through the Marxist state.

The Soviet Russian experiment stood as proof as to the danger of Marxist policies. Marxism is "all head", abstract intellectualism, to which the individual man is no more than an integer in the concatenation of the number system.

In a way, I know that saying this may appear as a trivial nothing to the ;powers that be and easily dismissed , within their realm, but it stands tall in other areas of understanding.

Capital, labor, and the rising of the proletariat in never ending war against the powers that be is cruel, on a major scale, and so , in a sense, Marx has had an influence , a destructive impulse , advocated by those who want matters to fall from their lips, in lugubrious motion, without a scintilla of proper thought.

We have to ask ourselves "what is the proper mission a government in any form". An answer is the buoyant improvement of the free individuality.

As an aside, I didn't go to the reference but have to ask"if the large increase in GDP is consequential how does that relate to the soul in Poughkeepsie ? It smells of more economic legerdemain for it doesn't speak to anyone but to the "head man", another "theory" which denies the individual man and will certainly do so if used as the basis for social activity. I want an explanation; tell me about Poughkeepsie.!