I am listing this piece because it illustrates an obsolete capitalist view of world economic issues. The author appears not to understand that the globalization phase of capitalism, starting in the 1970s under the influence of the neo-conservatives and greatly accelerated under that great liberal Presidency of Bill Clinton, has dramatically changed the way the biggest and most powerful capitalists view the world. This nationalistic perspective also informs the views of many others--most often among libertarians and liberals--who are critical of policies generated by existing political and economic elites.
A nationalistic perspective no longer informs the polices of the powerful capitalist operatives, especially on economic issues. These new supranational capitalists are located in many countries--indeed, they often spend their time in multiple countries--are now organized into an empire, a US led Empire, whose wealth accumulating interests are pursued through major banking institutions like the IMF, World Bank, UBS, etc. and numerous economic and political organizations. They also have a large army organized under NATO when more direct measures are needed to enforce their policies on uncooperative governments. The major actors in these institutions have a global capitalist perspective. In contrast, the author and many other liberals and libertarians have an old fashioned nationalistic view of the economy.
But there are other capitalist countries who wish to pursue a more independent, nationalistic course. The most prominent of which is China, to some extent Russia. As we witnessed in the 20th century, inter-capitalist rivalries can lead to devastating world wars. And then there are those irritating smaller countries such as Iran and Venezuela, and many indigenous and rebellious groups within capitalist countries throughout the world who fight back against capitalist policies: in Afghanistan, Iraq, within many Arab counties, India, etc. The latter are often referred to by capitalist media outlets as "terrorists".
Borders within the US Empire are of little concern to their political and economic operatives simply because they removed most border restrictions on the movement of capital. When capitalists want to take advantage of cheap labor, they now find it easy to move their factories to wherever they can find such labor. (Likewise, they are buying up land and resources everywhere.) And there is often an added bonus in the form of lax or unenforced environmental regulations. Border enforcement only exists to control the independent movement of working people. Whenever corporations want to move cheap labor to their production facilities, they have no problem doing so. But when workers try to move independently across borders to where the jobs are, they encounter enormous problems. That, of course, illustrates only one unfortunate feature of the class structured world we live in.
Notice also that the nationalistic view of capitalism expressed in the article frames the issues only from a competitive industrial point of view:
Real industries are not abstract aggregates; they are complex ecosystems of suppliers and supply chains, skills and customer relationships, long-term investments and returns. Deindustrialization is thus a more complex process than is usually realized. It is not just layoffs and crumbling buildings; industries sicken and die in complicated ways.It's clear that the author of this piece is representing the views of smaller capitalist enterprises within the US. And it's clear that they are hurting and will be hurt more in the future. The inherent tendency for capitalists to combine with others into larger units has always been seen to be an inherent tendency of capitalism by knowledgeable people. This process is utterly logical given the dynamics of private ownership, growth imperative, and individual wealth accumulation through corporate entities. The elimination of national borders to access cheap labor is utterly logical.
...All over America, [many] industries are quietly falling apart....
But, more importantly, notice that the author expresses no direct concern about the devastating loss of work skills on the lives of working people and on their communities in the US. It seems to me that if you accept the system, you must accept the consequences. Or, if you don't like the consequences, change the system!