If your industry disappears over 30 years, it's easy enough to stop hiring new people and draw down as the old retire. If it dies in five years, the dislocation is immense and it becomes nearly impossible to cope. The same problem of rapid change plays itself out in the developing world in different forms; rapid urbanization, pollution, dislocation from traditional ways of life.
If, as the article suggests, globalization has indeed slowed, perhaps the breathing space that slowdown provides will in the long run be a good thing. Deal with the problems we've created before doubling down on the instigating issue.
But that thin veneer no longer hides the truth: globalization destroys both developing economies and the middle class of developed economies.
Globalization is a passive and inevitable process resulting from the constant pressure on businesses to grow and serve more and more people. Ascribing a moral charge to the whole idea of globalization obscures what it actually is and how it came about.
These smaller businesses are the „top 1%“. And the reductions in shipping costs have had a huge negative impact on the environment (i.e. all of us) and actual small local producers.
In these developing countries you mention, it‘s also the „1%“ who benefited. The rest are working in cobalt mines etc. ...
During globalization we've had the fastest and greatest reduction of poverty on earth. Seems like a benefit to the poorest to me.
looking at number of chinese military bases outside of China, or number of actual wars China participated in last 20 years, you can probably say that China's hard-on for world domination is pretty modest, as compared to... other countries with such hard-on.
Edit: this article gives a fairly nuanced perspective on this topic, and its even more against my comment and for your comment.
I've seen this claimed but I've never seen it substantiated.
I'm not alone in this; even pro-capitalists agree that a relationship can be exploitative even if both parties benefit in some way - they just disagree that capitalism is the cause of such a relationship which we can see the world over.
I think the argument for capitalism improving peoples' lives by measurable degree is a valid one, but it is only as valid as the argument that feudalism (for instance) improved the lives of those without any sustenance or access to land at all. I think we have the capability to do better than pursuit of profit.
But some businesses created millions of jobs in China and many other places.. some of these were local, some of them not so local.
Some 1.2bn people have been lifted out of extreme poverty since 1990
If you look at recent history, the rich have tended to do well during relatively quiet times but less so during turbulent times (like wars), so I'm not sure its a good idea to hope for a situation where the rich don't do well.
If so those prices were set before china developed, and as they stand at the moment are a subsidy from developed countries to China. These artificially low prices don't apply to industrial quantities of good though.
Technology and medicine brought many benefits to the world. Globalization? I‘m not so sure.
There are still places trying socialism, and learning it doesn't raise people out of poverty, but creates more of it.
Even in the US the postal service is state owned. There are all sorts of regs around phone networks and health insurance that aren't capitalist in nature.
There's a wide spectrum in between the 2 extremes. You're right pure socialism doesn't work, neither does pure capitalism. Most of Europe exists quite happily further along the spectrum towards socialism, than for example the US.
Often government monopolies are the worst elements of socialism and crony capitalism combined. They enrich an oligarchy of elites who in turn, bribe politicians to put more business in their direction.
It's particularly against the site guidelines to insinuate astroturfing or shillage without evidence. "Lots of Chinese apparatchiks on here" is as absurd as it as lame, and if you post like that again we will ban you.
It's possible for people to disagree with you without being employed by the Chinese government.
I'm not sure how the 'problem' manifests, but it doesn't seem to line up with globalisation.
China is communist in name only. It's a capitalist economy which has enabled them to grow economically. Similarly with Vietnam, they're still recovering from the effects of communism, but it hasn't gone entirely.
Obviously, there is a spectrum, because some socialist policies exist everywhere. The point where socialism becomes anti-capitalism is where things start turn sour quite quickly.
India / Pakistan is one example. Lots of middle Africa. Basically anywhere where colonialism played a major role and there wasn't an ocean or giant mountain range to make it more obvious exactly where to 'draw the line' (usually fairly literally).
What's the difference between global trade and domestic trade though?
Seems to me that differing standards are the problem, rather than globalisation per se?
What restrains the urge of the top 100 corporate elite to pay their labor as little as possible, and get laws (e.g. anti-union, no minimum wage, etc.) passed accordingly, is that each of those 100 wants the other 99 to pay THEIR employees well, because the employees of the other 99 are his customers. He doesn't want to pay his own employees well, but he will collude with the other 98 to make sure each of the others pays their employees well enough they can buy his car/suit/food/appliance/etc.
But what if he can have the employees in another country, pay them pennies, and have his customers in this country? Or, if he's on the poor country side of things, what if he can just find rich customers in another country? Now he has no reason to worry about insuring that his peers' employees are paid well. They're no longer his customers.
But wait, how will there still be wealthy customers in his country? There won't. But, no problem, we can loan them the money to buy my stuff.
It works until it doesn't. But if your employees and your customers are drawn from the same pool, then your exploitative greed is checked by all your greedy peers' exploitative greed. This is why Henry Ford and Andrew Carnegie were both in favor of higher wages for factory workers; it wasn't because they were nice guys. But, more recently, the manufacturing happens elsewhere. This removes one of the only checks on the power of wealthy elites to apply the screws to their employees (legally or otherwise).
Chinese ripped off U.S.-based solar, went crazy, drove margins to 0%, overproduced, dumped in U.S., reduced U.S. profit incentive in solar development, and are now going to restrict supply to try to get prices up.
Meantime, we've had less serious R&D investment in solar than we would have had otherwise.
So, no, globalization doesn't always work especially when one of the other majors is a state-directed Communist country.
I’d be curious to find if there are international dumping laws or something similar. I’m on mobile, but I know the us has them.