Most people recall the 1990s as a carefree time of global harmony and economic dynamism, but that’s not accurate. There was economic growth, but there were problems, too: U.S. manufacturing industries began to feel the pinch of federal environmental and safety regulations, and foreign goods began to make their impact in the domestic market. There were currency meltdowns in Mexico, Russia, and Thailand, just to list a few of the “crises” that are not much remembered.

My own recollection of covering heavy manufacturing industries throughout the 1990s was their constant frustration about raising capital. At the time, investors wanted to put their money in “hot” stocks — telecommunications, for example, or more notoriously, the dot-com stocks — not tired old smokestack industries.

Markets change. Access to capital is easier at some times than others. As recently as a year ago metalcasters and other basic manufacturers were hot properties for private-equity investors, who recognized growth potential that other investment options couldn’t match.

Today, capital is scarce again, but one place to find lots of easy cash is in a “sovereign-wealth fund.” These are similar to hedge funds  — opportunistic private investment consortiums that make their capital available, for a piece of the action — except they are controlled by governments. Foreign governments.

The largest sovereign wealth funds are centered in nations rich with oil and resource revenues: Abu Dhabi, Norway, Kuwait, and Russia, as well as Australia and Canada. Other funds are centered in places with less-than-admirable reputations for civil and/or human rights, such as China and Singapore. Given its treatment of private enterprise, perhaps Russia should be in the latter grouping.

The role of these funds in the global economy is growing more ominous, and to some more dire. There is a Congressional effort to define “reasonable standards” for allowing these investments to take positions in U.S. equities. It’s understandable, considering how much secrecy is involved in the activities of even congenial governments.

But, these Congressional watchdogs are going to need luck for this to work. Money has a way of finding its way to its target. And borrowers need to borrow. So, ruling out certain sources of capital will merely lead that money to intermediaries and shell companies that will make the inevitable investment.

But a parallel observation is in order. As we fumble through this political year — on one hand bemoaning foreign subsidies for manufactured goods; on the other hand debating how much government protection will be needed to make domestic manufacturers more competitive — we’d do well to remind ourselves why we free trade and democracy work best in partnership, but not in tandem.