I’m not sure I grasp this argument.
According to the globalists, free trade is a great unalloyed blessing for the world. It is making the world a better place and more wealthier place over time:
“Yang is not running as a Republican, but potentially stirs a populistic aura similar with Donald Trump’s.
Democrats could be pushing Yang in that they realize Trump has hit home with most voters, and that Yang can similarly engage them by presenting a comparable image. The only question remaining is whether Yang, as a Democrat, can boast the same toughness and tenacity that Trump exhibits. Or will he instead cave to outside influence and fight against the wall and everything else designed to keep Americans safe? Could Yang potentially be just a “light” version of George Soros?
So far, his plans seem rather unseemly. One proposal involves $12,000 a year for “lazy freeloaders.” In other words, if you don’t want to work, you’ll still garner $1,000 a month. In this sense, Yang is nothing like Trump and terrible for the country. A nation of non-workers can only lead to economic instability and an early death for America’s infrastructure.
This isn’t that different from AOC, whose Green New Deal would have offered base salaries to residents “unwilling to work.” It’s a case of spending money while getting none back. At the end of the day, Yang only looks different, but he’s still pushing the same stupid ideals. …”
I agree that trade is good.
If that is indeed the case, then why is a redistribution of wealth from the oligarchs to the dispossessed workers such a radical idea? How is it a more radical idea than global free trade? The one forces rips apart the social fabric by gutting the economy and concentrating wealth at the top of the social scale. The other force would heal the damage by redistributing the benefits.