I can understand it, you're right that the majority is consistently coming out against their own interests when they support free markets, oppose government intervention but they have a very proud tradition and appealing ideology associated with Capitalism and the early days of their independence which were very different from today.
Properly understood the ideology of capitalism IS very appealing, it makes socialism look positively plausible by comparison its so utopian, and it does a lot of things, tells you temptation is fine, greed is good, its optimism and positive psychology incarnate.
This is something that its critics all the way back to Marx and before that, whether they were conservative or anti-establisment, never really understood. Capitalism's so appealing in so many different ways and has such a capacity for reinventing itself it'll out last anything and everything.
It'll win support from its natural enemies and remain appealing when its obviously obsolete, unlike monarchism or any of the conventions which preceeded it.
I know that they have a tradition, It is just that I don't understand why would they support this tradition.
To be honest I trully don't understand American people when it comes to this.
Large number of Americans wants markes as free as possible. While that same market exports jobs overseas where workforce is 20-100 times cheaper. Which is because the only thing free market wants and desires is profit.
Plus a number of them is annoyed by goverment protectionism. What is basicly the only thing that keeps things working.
Did I got something wrong ?
This particular part of the "capitalism" issue is one of the most widely recognized contradictions, even among those who support "markets as free as possible." Many make an exception on that point, or are at least debating it.
I'm only pointing this out because the most heavily argued (and stubborn) parts are elsewhere in the "capitalism" debate here in the U.S.
i like your freinds article. would want to see a bit more data before i concluded that globalization was a good thing, overall. certinly open to the idea that it is, or, at least that it could be, if it were ammended slightly. Here's a link to that study on lessening violence:
This particular part of the "capitalism" issue is one of the most widely recognized contradictions, even among those who support "markets as free as possible."
We made the decision to abandon all tariffs and enter the global free market and it has been successful for us in that we have been growing non-stop for nineteen years, and of all the developed nations we have weathered the current financial crisis the best.
However the largest economy in the world officially espouses free trade. So we thought it would be a doodle to sign a free trade agreement with them. Not so.
Not only did we have to supply them with blood and treasure first, but we had to supply them with unequivocal political support. And it was only when your President and our Prime Minister became 'best mates' that we got our free trade agreement. But even that was grudging as it would only be slowly implemented over twenty years.
We notice that there is the sizzle and the steak, and that the largest economy in the world espouses free trade as the sizzle, but is a little short on the steak.