It is time for a review of the hip thigh bone theory of the world. The theory is based on the 1920s African-American spiritual “Dem bones, Dem Bones, Dem Dry Bones.”
The ditty in turn was based on a Biblical passage in which a collection of dry bones reassemble themselves before the astonished eyes of the prophet Ezekiel.
The foot-tapping, hand-clapping tune is a roof raiser in evangelical churches around the world. It is also a popular song in young children’s anatomy classes.
For the purposes of this article, however, it is a perfect metaphor of how the rapidly shrinking and interconnected world has become increasingly dependent on its constituent parts (or bones) working together. Recognition of this interconnectability is becoming increasingly important as the world’s political leaders appear to be intent on disassembling the skeletons and protecting their constituent parts behind fast growing economic, political and – sometimes – physical walls.
Globalisation has become a dirty word. Forget the fact that it lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty in the 1990s and early part of the 21st century. And that it ushered in decades of growth and low inflation. Substituted in its place is the mantra of “economic security” and “national interests.”
Also forget the fact that the new buzzwords totally ignore reality. Like it or not – that the world body politic has become totally interconnected. In fact, the bones that comprise the skeleton of our globe are not so much connected as fused and then overlaid with a complex web of nerves, muscles, sinews, international political and trade organs, ligaments and a protective skin of military alliances. In fact, it seems, that the only thing missing from this political metaphor is a functioning brain.
The advantages of free trade are not new. They have been propounded for centuries. They are at the very core of the capitalist’s Bible, Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and were later developed by David Ricardo who urged countries to exploit their “comparative advantage” through free trade.
Free trade is also one of the recognised major contributors to world peace. You are much less likely to go to war with a country which you depend on for your financial well-being. This concept was at the very heart of the creation of the European Union, and until Ukraine, has prevented any major European wars for 77 years – the longest period of European peace in history.
The two biggest threats to free trade are the world’s two biggest economies—China and the United States. Both are raising tariff barriers and increasing subsidies to protect their industries from competition from each other. The trade war started with Donald Trump but has continued under the Biden Administration. US tariffs on Chinese imports currently average 19.3 percent and cover 66.4 percent of Chinese goods – six times higher than in 2018.
President Biden is on the cusp of announcing new tariffs to protect the US electric vehicle market, steel industry, aluminium production and shipbuilding. But his plans are nothing compared to those of Trump who wants to impose an across-the-board 60 percent tariff on Chinese imports.
China has tariffs too—five to 25 percent on American imports. But its biggest spanner in the world economy’s machinery is subsidies. According to the Centre for Strategic International Studies, China devotes nearly two percent of its GDP to bankrolling its industry. This compares to 0.39 percent that the US government spends on subsidizing American industry.
At the moment, US subsidies are focused on developing green technology – $369 billion through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). This is unpopular with America’s competitors because part of the IRA is a “buy American” policy which is encouraging foreign-based companies to relocate to the US.
The Sino-America trade war and the IRA means that the world’s largest trading bloc, the European Union, is in danger of following suit because of fears that it needs protection from the two super powers. Meanwhile, Russia—along with China and a growing number of players from the Global South—are pursuing a policy of might is right in the belief that they will gain advantage in the ensuing chaos.
The trade wars have inevitably spilled over into the military and political fields. The Ukraine War is the most obvious example. Except for its oil and gas resources, Russia has comparatively few advantages in an economic conflict. Its economy is smaller than Italy’s– $1.7 trillion GDP compared to the Italian GDP of $2.1 trillion, and doesn’t even come close to the American GDP of $20.5 trillion. Russia, however, is a military super power, so it follows David Ricardo’s advice and exploits its “comparative advantage.”
The Ukraine War has in turn encouraged an American isolationist lobby who have tired of the “endless wars” that have plagued US foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. In response to the US isolationists French President Emmanuel Macron recently called on fellow European leaders to shake off their decades-long dependence on the American nuclear umbrella, thus threatening the cohesion of NATO from both sides of the Atlantic.
The world is in danger of tearing out its global backbone. And once disassembled, the bones of the world body politic will not magically reassemble as they did in the Book of Ezekiel, Chapter 37, verses 1 through 14.
* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A perpetual pirouette of prevarication?
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
David Raw
Jenny Barnes
Tom Bailey
Gill Travers
Alison Howarth
25 Comments
Thank you for an interesting and most relevant article!
Might this article also be relevant?
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2024/05/a-pessimistic-economist-laments-the-end-of-order.htm
Rod Dreher – a staunch American conservative talking about the working class & globalisation.
Spot on ..
‘Because they haven’t benefited from it, at least not as much as they have lost. Not too many working-class folks are going to be able to do a sophisticated cost-benefit analysis of trading patterns over the past three decades, and explain how they have been affected by globalization.
What many working-class folks see is that there used to be good jobs for them, and now there are fewer of those jobs. They see that their adult children, and their grandchildren, have less job security than they do. They see the rich getting richer and everybody else stalling out or declining.
It doesn’t make sense to talk about overall economic gains to the American economy when so many of those gains have aggregated towards the top. You can also talk about how much cheaper globalization makes everyday consumer products, and how much that benefits the working class, but that does not compensate for the loss of meaningful employment, versus service-sector jobs that pay far less and have less dignity than what they replaced.
Finally, it is true that globalization has helped hundreds of millions around the world out of grinding poverty. But they are an abstraction to working-class Americans who have been made to bear a far disproportionate amount of the burden from policies that benefited foreigners — and well-to-do Americans’
@ Steve Trevethan. The Economist and I published the same views on the same day. I like to think that puts me in good company as The Economist endorsed the Lib Dems in the last election.
@ Martin Gray: It is the responsibility of our political leaders to help the voters understand the sophisticated cost benefits analysis. They have failed and I fear it is a failure which will damage every class of society.
The Sino-America trade war and the IRA means that the world’s largest trading bloc, the European Union,…
Fourth largest…
1. RCEP
2. USMCA
3. CPTPP
4. EU
5. AfCFTA
6. Mercosur
‘These are the world’s biggest trading blocs’ [April 2023]:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/04/growth-summit-2023-world-biggest-trading-blocs/
“help the voters understand the sophisticated cost benefits analysis”
Mmm. I think we have had enough of experts who can do fancy CBA but don’t understand real life. Mostly, people who felt better off or reasonably well off voted remain, and those who felt they had been hard done by voted leave. Brexit is an example of the breakdown of the “rules based international order”.
“That economy you’re talking about – it’s not my economy”
PS on the Economist. Some of its journalism is very good, but you have to read it remembering that it comes from a neo-liberal stance, and neo liberalism is part of the reason for the breakdown in democratic consent for the RBIA, even in the countries like the USA, UK, Europeans etc who have benefitted from it.
I am sorry Jenny, but I am sick of being made to resent a first-class education which my parents sacrificed mightily give me.
I am sick of being made to feel guilty for having used that education to learn as much as possible about the world.
I am sick of being branded as “elitist” because I feel an obligation to communicate more than half a century of accumulated knowledge and experience.
I do apologise. Nothing I wrote was meant as a criticism of you – I always enjoy your contributions. The “experts” piece should have been in quotes as I was thinking about what Gove had to say in the Brexit campaign. I personally have a lot of time for experts on anything.
The matter under discussion isn’t that hard to understand so we don’t need to claim we have had a superior education, or get into so called “cost benefit analysis” to see the Issues.
If the people in the UK can buy cheaper shoes from Vietnam , cheaper clothes from Bangladesh, and cheaper lots of things from China, including pottery then we can appreciate we’ll all be better off on aggregate. On the other hand, workers in Northampton who used to make shoes, workers in Lancashire who used to make textiles, and workers in Stoke who used to make pottery are going to lose their jobs.
The responsibility of government is to ensure that the adverse effects of any economic displacement are minimised as much as possible and that some of the benefits of the cheaper imports are used to help retrain displaced workers, start up new industries, and ensure that the productive talents of the work force weren’t wasted.
The Thatcher government was probably the worst in failing to do this. They had an influx of oil money which could have been far better spent. But the criticism extends to all governments in the last 50 years. If we hadn’t had the needless austerity of the coalition government, I doubt that the vote on the EU would have gone the way it did.
A good article and in general I agree that free trade is a good thing and is an important factor in having lifted maybe billions of people out of poverty. There are complications though: What do you do for example if the reason some country can produce things cheaper is they use child/exploitative labour and have no environmental standards? There are also legitimate concerns about becoming reliant on potential enemies for key products (as amply illustrated by Western angst over Russian oil and gas post-Ukraine).
Also, one little quibble: While it’s true that the EU was motivated by the (correct) belief that trade would help prevent wars, trade wasn’t the only thing keeping peace in Europe: The threat of nuclear weapons and Mutually Assured Destruction between East and West was arguably just as important pre-1990. And as for no major European wars for 77 years… I suspect the survivors of Bosnia might have something to say about that! (Guess it hinges a bit on what you consider to be ‘major’)
Jennny, I apologise for my over-reaction and thank you for your apology. As you have probably surmised, you hit a raw nerve with your first comment. I think there is too much emphasis on politicians having to be “one of us.” I would prefer it if our leaders were the bestest of the best and the brightest of the bright.
@Peter: I think your analysis is excellent.
@ Simon R: I think the only way we deal with issue of goods produced by “slave labour” is to boycott them. As for nuclear deterrence, of course you are right. I argue that the EU and NATO are two sides of the same coin and that one could not achieve its objectives without the other. I suppose that is another angle to my hip thigh bone theory of the world. By the way, please note that if anyone wants to receive my email alerts they can subscribe to them by going to [email protected]. They are free.
It’s of little comfort to those in precarious employment on low pay zhc – to know that white goods are much cheaper than they use to be …Those post industrial towns have seen industries long gone only to be replaced by faceless warehouses on the edge of town . Being in the EU didn’t make one iota of a difference. Workers rights – couldn’t see or feel the benefits…These towns have become unrecognisable in recent years – as progressive liberals embrace multiculturalism, those towns are monocultural – in living side by side with minimal integration…Only now some political leaders in the EU are getting it , both women Mette Friedriksen & Sahra Wegenknecht,
once darlings of the progressive left .
Does “Free Trade” mean trade without rules, trade with agreed, sustained rules, rules which protect and/or develop the well being of a whole society/country/ our one and only world, rules and lack of rules which benefit the wealthy/powerful groups, rules which are intended to benefit particular nation-states, rules which are forms of warfare or what?
P. S. Might we benefit from greater free trade of ideas and their foundations?
Might the three phase model help us?
1) Input
2) Processes
3) Output/consequences across a whole society
By the way I was thinking a bit more about the long peace in Europe and wondering if trade/the EU really was necessary for that peace: My reasoning is – experience tells us that full democracies almost never seem to go to war against each other: Almost every full war that’s ever happened, one side was a dictatorship. And it’s not hard to see why democracies would typically be very reluctant to wage war on each other. But after WWII the Allies managed to install democratic governments almost everywhere in Europe this side of the Iron Curtain (I think Spain, Portugal and Greece were the only exceptions) – so peace between between Western countries was perhaps already inevitable due to the spread of democracy. Meanwhile, a sort-of peace inside the Iron Curtain was enforced by the USSR controlling most Governments, and East vs West peace was enforced by nuclear deterrence. I would therefore speculate that Europe would have remained largely at peace even without the ECSC and then EEC being created. Of course the people behind it had no way of knowing that at the time, so from their perspective, it was very reasonable to try to lock in peace by creating a trade organisation and pursuing integration, quite aside from the expected economic benefits of doing so.
We have no way of knowing for sure, but it seems possible.
Interesting theory Simon
Are economic warfare and financial warfare being classified as economics or forms of conflict or what?
@ Simon R,
I tend to agree but of course there is no way of knowing for sure.
Many wars tend to occur in the aftermath of the break up of Empires. The Wars in the Ukraine and the former Yugoslavia have occurred in the aftermath of the break up of the Soviet bloc. The Wars in Palestine, and the Middle East generally, can be traced back to problems associated with new borders created after the defeat of the Ottomans in WW1. The Vietnam war has its roots in the break up of the French Empire after WW2.
WW2 arose through a combination factors. One of which was the tensions created after the old German and Austro Hungarian Empires broke apart and were replaced by new countries whose borders were disputed.
So what might happen if the ‘EU empire’ crumbles? The problem created by the common currency is that the wealthier countries (Germany, the Netherlands etc) are effectively owed hundreds of billions of euros by the less affluent countries (Italy, Greece, Spain etc) but which can never be repaid.
The Greek debt crisis brought tensions to the fore with renewed Greek demands for German WW2 reparations and German demands that debts were debts and had to be repaid somehow. Handing over sovereignty of the some of the Greek islands maybe?
This all seems to have blown over for now. Just what will happen if the EU does break up is anyone’s guess.
Jenny: It is not true that the Economist “comes from a neo-liberal stance”.
Martin: Your assertion that “These towns have become unrecognisable in recent years – as progressive liberals embrace multiculturalism, those towns are monocultural – in living side by side with minimal integration” is untrue and a far right fantasy, certainly where I live in Burnley.
Gordon …. – I’m stating that lots of different communities live side by side to each other and are not as multicultural as we like to think or believe.
The inward migration into those towns in recent years has been significant . Immigration is a concern to voters , and it impacts those towns considerably…Only a few politicians from the left understand that – the rest are still wedded to a metropolitan middle class mindset ..
‘For me, it is becoming increasingly clear that the price of unregulated globalisation, mass immigration and the free movement of labour is paid for by the lower classes’
Mette Friedriksen…
These kind of arguments are already out of date, the next “industrial” revolution has already started, AI and robots preparing to take over vast numbers of jobs, sending the cost of “labour” on the fast track to almost zero and meaning factories can pop up wherever it is most convenient for sales (people buying direct from the factories mostly via the internet so retail is also going to die – I do this already via aliexpress for most things other than food)… luckily for us, the whole machinery of production does require consumers so I guess UBI is the actual future, we would not want robots to have an electronis breakdown because they were stood idle. Alas, I suspect I will be gone before you can order a carer who looks like your fav movie actress.
Martin: you assert that your rather simplistic and out-dated view is fact. I live here and I’m telling you that it isn’t. In particular, there have been major changes over the last 20 years.
The fact that you can find someone who has stated a view doesn’t mean that opinion is more true than many others which have researched and published on all the different aspects of this debate.
That view is from the Danish PM Gordon …A Social Democrat.
Here’s one from a Durham university lecturer…
Very eloquently put…
https://www.e-ir.info/2010/12/09/the-failure-of-british-multiculturalism-and-the-virtue-of-reciprocity/
This is why we need a stronger and more effective United Nations and other global institutions. There is no alternative to reforming the Security Council so one country however powerful cannot override the remainder of its members. It is the veto that is the issue and no amount of tinkering with the structure will remedy this fundamental point.
Peter Martin, I like reading your contributions to discussions regarding economics. Have you noted that Angus Seaton, the Nobel prize winning Economics professor at Princeton University has completely changed his views about the benefits of the complete free market economy and it’s globalisation of trade ? What are your thoughts on this ?
Sorry that should be Deaton not Seaton !