National Sovereignty vs. Economic Globalization

[Professor S]

I love capitalism. It is not a perfect economic system, but compared to its alternatives it about as close as you can get. Capitalism supports and encourages several ideals that I believe are essential to world culture, such as personal responsibilty, success based on merit and flat out freedom to live the way that you see fit. It is vulnerable to abuses that can hinder these ideals, but at least they are achieveable.

My problem with capitalism is that I believe it is a dog in a constant state of near starvation. Meaning: If you let iit, capitalism will eat and eat and eat.. far beyond to point of sating its hunger... and eventually eat itself to death. Teddy Roosevelt understood this and created a great number of anti-trust and usery laws to protect capitalism from itself. He undertood that in order for corporations and free economics to work and be beneficial to the nation, they needed to be fed regularly and with quality, but always kept on a leash.

Well, many of Roosevelt's achievements have been torn apart in just the past few years. The anti-trust laws have been steamrolled by lobbyists and have let companies like Comcast and Verizon recreate virtual monopolies through the excuse that global economics and service reselling is a substitute for actual domestic competition. Also, the usery laws have been remade, or in my opinion, virtually removed, allowing lenders to gauge their customers and encourage increasing debt while removing the ability (or severely hindering) an individual's ability to declare bankruptcy when that encouraged debt becomes too much to bear.

Now we are starting to see the greatest fear that Roosevelt had regarding unchecked capitalism raise its ugly head, and that is a selling of national sovereignty to the highest bidder. There is a lot of hoopla regarding Dubai Ports World's, which is owned by the United Arab Emirates, purchase of the rights to control several major ports in America. The main issue being debated is whether or not DPW is able or willing to support our national security. While this is a considerable argument and it should be examined, it is secondary to me.

My issue is that control of our ports is being sold to a company which is owned by another NATION. I don't care if it was Britain or Canada who placed the highed bid, the idea of selling control of our ports to another nation is ludicrous and a frightening sign of things to come. We already treat our southern border security with as much resolve as a wink and a smile because we would rather enable a corrupt, third world nation for cheap labor than actually worry about a government whose military has mad over 200 illegal incursions onto our territory. Now we are letting other nations out-and-out purchase control of vital infrastructure.

Roosevelt knew that unregulated capitalism was not a democratic panacea but a cancer, one that could consume a nation if those that governed that nation let it. Well those that are running the government in both parties are not only standing by while our protections are being overrun, but they are actively stripping them away.

I am not an economist and if I am incorrect on any of these points, please let me know. This is all knowledge that I have gleaned from various sources and if I am out of my depth with this please do not hesitate to correct whatever I've gotten wrong. I am becoming very concerned for the future of US and other countries abilities to self-govern without being beholden to the whims of those who do not have the good of the people as their main concern.