A friend of mine sent me a link to a TED talk given by a presumably learned Briton, speaking to an audience in Canada. The speech which is linked here: I found as quite interesting on several levels. Obviously, the speech was given from a "British" point of view, but one that was actually a minority viewpoint by virtue of Brexit itself.

What did I agree with? Several important things that were expressed simply but convingnly. First xenophobia, racism, and immigration (all are related but not necessarily equivalent terms). Any Progressive in the US would agree that xenophobia and racism are terrible things. Immigration control, if properly modulated, is a subject worthy of more discussion than this essay will expend here. Briefly, however, complete restriction of immigration is both morally and economically wrong--as Mr. Betts clearly outlined. On the opposite extreme, unrestricted immigration is careless and potentially dangerous. The immigration debate therefor correctly depends on reasoned, as opposed to emotional, efforts to find common ground.

Another point by Mr. Betts is that his analysis of the second of the two major factors causing the "Leave" vote was a desire to maintain national sovereignty. He made a case, which I found less compelling than the case about xenophobia/racism. Mr. Betts talked about "inclusive globalization", a term dating back to U.N. General Secretary Kofi Anan in 2002. The explanation for this concept has merit--but it is weak, for reasons which are discussed below.

The simplified expression of "inclusive globalization' (IG) is that we are all dwellers on the same planet. No argument there. Another aspect of this IG concept is, that if we all acknowledge our joint tenancy of this planet, then we must learn to peacefully co-exist. Obviously, if we are in this together, we as nations will be less likely to pull each other down. Trying to put some flexibility in this IG idea is that it must become universal to become fully realized. This is a fine idea, but I believe it is based on numerous naive beliefs which were only partially enunciated by Mr. Betts.

Like Karl Marx, one untenable--and always will be untenable hypothesis offered in this speech is that if we are trading partners, it becomes disadvantageous to disrupt so-called Free Trade (FT). Like true Communism, FT has never existed in all of recorded history and never will exist. Marx held the basic objective of Communism was: "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs". I have made comments in c99 about why this conceptualization of the end results is just as wrong as Marx's formulation of "Capitalism" was correct.

Herein lies the problems which I have with the Bettsian conception of FT. What is free trade? Are we talking about Adam Smith's pre-information age conception of free trade? In that formulation, Smith posited the market forces would determine the provision and consumption of resources. This condition will be true in which competition is the hallmark of free markets and at that time almost equivalent to FT. The death knell to this wonderful, yet idealistic, formulation is called "Merger". Merger, as we all know is the eating of smaller fish by larger fish. Or businesses of one another. In the case of the smaller fish, the end result is a form of assimilation commonly known in biologic terms, as digestion. The larger fish grows--that smaller fish's remains are excreted, useless and spent on the seabed floor. When this concept is extended to businesses, there are really two significant byproducts (apart from immediate financial gain of the larger business). One obvious effect is euphemized as "down-sizing", by which employees of a larger and presumably more efficient post-merger entity are not exactly digested--but they are ejected. They are ejected from their employment into the great sea of the jobless.

The second result of mergers is that they reduce the competition between providers of goods or services. Thus society as a whole ends up paying more for whatever the newly merged company provides. Uninterrupted we go through some intermediary steps until we get to oligopoly. This is where the US "free markets" currently are. The next obvious step is to monopoly and I don't mean the board game. When a producer has become an oligopoy or especially a monopoly again then are two results--both of which are derivatives of what happens a simple merger of two companies in less concentrated markets;
1. We consumers are at the complete control of the providers if we wish to obtain their goods or services.
2. The employers have absolute control of working conditions and wages. Of course strong labor unions are a counterforce to mistreatment, underpayment of workers. In our "modern" society, however, the labor unions have been effectively eviscerated through political collusion with the oligopolists. Such evisceration of labor unions is not an inevitable in a complex society such as ours. To restrain these agglomerative tendencies of corporations requires active, continual, and persistent controls by the government. This requirement then becomes the subject matter more suitably expressed in a longer essay.

So what did Betts not say?
The speech lasted a little bit longer than 17 minutes. It was not until 10 minutes into this oration that Betts mentioned anything about the populist revolt, other than above-discussed sovereignty/xenophobia/racism aspect. Mr. Betts lives in a bubble (ivory tower or whatever). He spent about 60 seconds of this talk about that which was the main motivator for likely a majority of "Leave" voters. He lamely attributes the populist side of the message as follows: the less-educated feel they have been left out or ignored by their government. That's it. That's all he said. Betts either lacked the courage, insight or honesty to acknowledge the entire leftist reasoning for "Leave".

Yes, many Brits felt the government under-represented the people's interests. The power of corporations was not mentioned AT ALL. Political corruption by the monied interests was not mentioned AT ALL. The economic divisiveness (not simply a matter of education or class, as Betts blithely espouses) of wealth redistribution FROM the lower echelons of society to the ELITES was completely ignored.

In the modern lexicon Free Trade is most definitely NOT equivalent to free markets. The modern meaning of FT is that there shall be unrestricted commerce; unrestricted as to what is sold where (like US missiles sold to Iran under Saint Ronnie) or selling 90% interest in US uranium mines to companies run by Vladimir Putin. FT means more national subjugation under ISDS-like (Investor-State Disagreement Settlement) "treaties". If you hold even a trace of national pride in our system of government, then when ISDS is ratified in the future, you will have non-elected (read corporatist-appointed) referees deciding in which companies favor they will rule. These enforced, undemocratic tribunals will most definitely surrounded national concerns to corporate concerns. ISDS inherently abrogates national sovereignty to any outfit that can claim it lost a few bucks because of a nation's instance on self-governance.

Tariffs, emplaced to protect nascent or struggling established industries, even if temporary, will be forbidden. I am not yearning for a return to Smoot-Haley economic isolationism. Yet tariffs, well-regulated observing and responding to changing national / international economic needs are both necessary and proper. But with ISDS, the word tariff will become as extinct as the dinosaur.

The US does not have a corner on the market of entitled bubbles by self-justifying endorsers of the ongoing redistribution of wealth and power in our society. Just listen to Mr. Betts and all the other "Remain" advocates. Income divisiveness never enters their colloquies.