The New Trade Order
A response to an essay published in Foreign Affairs May/June 2026 issue. My position is as a Heterodox Interventionist Liberal. I tried to keep my verdict succinct but when I spend 1/3 of my weekly income on groceries I tend to ramble.
ECONOMICSPHILOSOPHYPOLITICS
Charmaine Begell
9/28/20267 min read
I have co-opted the name of the essay, “The New Trade Order” from the May/June 2026 issue of Foreign Affairs as my response because I am in agreement with the premise of the argument; the era needs a New Trade Order. I am contesting the argument on two base premises. One being the omission of admitting what was working before other OEL economists, like himself, interfered based on unrealistic hopes and greed. The other being the conclusion of the argument.
His entire premise shouts an Orthodox Economic Liberal (OEL) framework, without stating he is an OEL. There are not many out there who would argue against the formation of a New Trade Order. One does not have to have studied Sociology to understand that what we have isn’t working. The current system as constructed is not functioning to the benefit of society and causing disruptive harm. The current Trade Order is a pseudo free market landscape that's ‘Invisible Hand’ is controlled by a couple malevolent billionaires and the minions of people they keep rich, by gorging off the ingenuity of the American people. The advice offers on what needs to happen comes from an individual that is, for all intents and purposes, an agent that was all-in on the failed OEL experiment is as dumb as buying a broken record.
My irritation with many economist contributors has occurred more frequently over the last year than over the seven years I have been an avid reader of the Foreign Affairs journal. I have a habit of reacting like an overeducated busy body when it comes to the thesis of specialists within the landscape of economic theory arguing for prolonged Orthodox Economic Liberal policies as the only neoliberal economic theory. I may not have a PhD but I understand what worked, and what isn’t working. So much of pundit opining on Neo-Liberal economic theory is built upon understanding and studying the structure of the Bretton Woods era post World War II reconciliation and the last 80 year shift toward globalization. On this I do not find fault. Understanding how agents created and formed the institutions that came out of the Bretton Woods agreements is extremely important.
One of the most important pillars to understanding the foundation that has built our world is too often what is most commonly omitted in these essays monitored by Neo-con editors. They mention Bretton Woods and Keynesian economics without mentioning the theory of Heterodox Interventionist Liberals (HIL) or that this in no way represents current globalist ideology. The 1944s neoliberalism that was spearheaded by Keynesian formed the turn of the century economics establishment; now known as Keynesian economics academically referred to as HIL. I don't know why so many sector specialist omit the mention of Keynesian economics verse Friedman economics. I have become exhausted by institutions of higher learning like Wharton spouting Milton Friedman as the market’s savior. Loving him with a zealous high-hope in belief.
This economic shift to invest in government spending as a means to create jobs and stimulate the economy to repair the industry post war lead to some of the fastest growing wealth distribution in the United States. It helped rebuild Japan into the industrial competitor it is now, it allowed western Germany to take part in rebuilding loans that invested in their people. It brought Canada closer to the US, our neighbor with which we share 5,525 miles of border. When our farmers had the opportunity to grow crops that fit their own financial and crop logistics. It was a time when taxes went to supporting the greater good and CEO pay checks did not exceed a 20-1 ratio. The current CEO pay ratio during the age of Friedman OEL policies have brought it to 360-1 ratio.
Then as the fear of communism grew and greed became the model of strength there was a shift in economic and political policy. What so many authors, like Robert Litzenberger and his associates, predominantly fail to mention is that OEL economics is not responsible for the growth of the middle class, expansion of American innovation, high unemployment, high works satisfaction, and boom to homeownership, to mention just a limited amount of positives. It is responsible for the largest income inequality, the rise in narcotics, the deterioration of our education system, the commodification of our health industry and crumbling of our infrastructure. Basically, all the variables of what inspired people to immigrate to the US and seek out what was referred to the ‘American Dream’ was a Keynesian policy. That HIL liberal economic theory is not the same as the Orthodox Economic Liberals (OEL) neoliberal economic theory that pushed for globalization to cut, labor cost, cut corporate taxes, divest from public spending, increased joblessness, cause high levels of work dissatisfaction and increased the national debt, as well as individual household debt. It also successfully propped up our political enemies, and is leading to the erosion of democratic principles.
Litzenberger cited solid facts and honest variables. Such as the “CBO projects annual growth for the next eight years to teeter at 1.8%”(Litzenberger, 2026), and with our current inflation rate at 3.7% this precludes that life for the average American is just going to get harder. Another honest admittance is that “working class wage earners already live eight years fewer than college grads”(Litzenberger, 2026), but college grads are spending more of their future earnings paying off accrued debt. With the average salaried employee earning on average 130% less than the top three positions in any corporation. Litzenberger is admitting that the system set up has not turned out as benevolent as was hoped. His arguments’ conclusion becomes into a story that seeks to change the perception of the system that has failed the majority of families more than the failings of the system itself.
Now I am not going down to my storage locker to sift through my Adam Smith literature, and notes so I can cite his economic and philosophical theory. All grad students who study economic theory have read Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations”, or parts of it. What all Milton Friedman and Ayn Rayn acolytes seem to bypass is his “Theory of Moral Sentiment” or parts of it. In this he clearly states that the humans are not prone to do what is best for the whole and are drawn to selfish impulses making the idea of ‘invisible hand’ more wishful thinking than a economic policy. Smith was in fact was pro-regulation because that is the only arena where an ‘invisible hand’ could actually have the opportunity to act in ‘good faith’. I get so tired of all these people who took one line in over 1,200 pages and built and entire economic system in complete disregard of the the other 1,199 pages and associated book. But that is a good metaphor for why we find ourselves in the shit we are in now. In landscape of America’s elites it is better to feign understanding than actually understand
So much resentment today is passed to Boomers for fueling and feeding this situation. If we are honest it is not just the Boomer disciples’ toxic understanding of economics tunnel vision for low taxes. There are OEL adherents that span all the generations and are still being fed the bag of bullshit. There was Paul Ryan, Howard Lutnick, Mark Zuckerberg, MAGA influencers like Vivek Ramaswamy and Alex Bruesewitz. Once infected, toxins continue to spread until treated. Our society has failed to treat the sickness and until we do the ‘American Dream’ is for crooks and criminals like Ramaswamy and Trump who exploit the sick and weak to get rich. This problem of ill-intentioned OELs is not going away, because with all the defunding of real learning, the dumb just keep getting dumber.
He slides from the 1970s through the 1990s moaning about all the concessions the big countries made and regulatory regimes that were somehow at fault of all that has transpired in this collapsing economy. Again men like this seem to live in some fantastical fantasy realm about believing in a benevolent ‘Invisible Hand’ that just wasn’t given enough chances 30 years later to show it was actually a functional idea. For a group of people that demonize poor people for not being realistic enough about life, agents such as Robert Litzenberger enjoy living in their own detached reality.
At the end of the article, the author correctly argues that it is time to TTP the shit out of our trade networks based on principles of like-minded, economic, and social interests. As a firewall against our too lenient policies with our greatest rivals. Then incorrectly proposes that the money should be spent investing in our defense industry, pharmaceutical industry, and data center technology. Which are all very bad OEL theorists ideas. I praise the acknowledgment that the shift from HIL economics to OEL economics beginning under Reagan provided cheap goods to Americans at the cost of about five million jobs and our industrial resilience (Litzenberger, 2026). Coming to terms with what didn’t work is a way to address the future of what can work. The economic system that comes out of this era will be neither a HIL or OEL experiment, on this I am also in consensus. Where I again diverge from the authors conclusion is the OEL neocon solution.
I was with him again right till he went off the rail gun to AI apologist. The belief that the new system should focus their investment into national defense and prevent the transfer of wealth to geopolitical adversaries is misaligned. He wants to limit subsidies while arguing for investment in defense. The largest recipients of subsidies are big oil, big war, and big ag. So unless he get’s realistic about cutting them off, his arguments should not be showcased as academically rigorous in any serious environment.
I agree the new system should look to benefit home economic and national security however, we should instead be investing in public healthcare, affordable housing, mass transit systems, small business growth, and education systems. All these actually look to serve the constituents not the leeches. The New Trade Order should seek to solve issues around strong labor protections, affordability, healthcare and innovation, infrastructure investments, and taking agricultural back from the three big corp. that are poisoning our people, not build more means to kill and destroy.
Terms:
Heterodox Interventionist Liberals - Argues that free markets are prone to failure, inequality, and uneven outcomes. Believes the state must actively intervene through spending and regulation to ensure social stability and full employment.
Orthodox Economic Liberal - Strongly champions free trade, deregulation, and open markets. Believes markets naturally correct themselves and stabilize during recessions.
Lighthizer, R.E., 2026. The New Trade Order: Restoring Balance to a Broken Global Economy. Foreign Affairs, 105(3), pp. 57-69.