Yay, ad-hoc bullshit reasoning to justify nationalism!
If there are good reasons to do something a certain way then there is no need to plaster nationalist labels all over it and employ nationalist propaganda. Those are just weak excuses for nationalism.
Also, more often than not anti-globalization is just disguised nationalism. At least the brand of anti-globalization that would say something like “100% US made”. Yes, globalization has serious downsides – but only because it happens with nations still existing.
> plaster nationalist labels all over it and employ nationalist propaganda.
That's what you did. He just said '100%-USA product'.
> Those are just weak excuses for nationalism.
How so? Nationalism and producing a product within in a certain region/state/country is not the same, no matter how much you want it to be.
> Also, more often than not anti-globalization is just disguised nationalism.
Not where I live (Germany).
> Yes, globalization has serious downsides – but only because it happens with nations still existing.
No, there are many versatile reasons why globalization has downsides (and upsides), I'm sure you can come up with one or two more if you just wanted to. But it seems that all you care about is nationalism.
> Nationalism and producing a product within in a certain region/state/country is not the same, no matter how much you want it to be.
Not only is it the same, it is the definition of Nationalism. The company would choose a US manufacturer over a competitor in a foreign country, even if a foreign manufacturer made a better product at a better price and was a better employer. This is no different than choosing your supplier by race, religion or gender.
I agree however on the anti-globalization movement in Germany, it's not nationalism but economic ignorance with a sprinkling of Marxism.
Nationalism is an ideology that a person or group's loyalty to a nation surpasses other needs, goals, etc.
Nationalism is not simply building a product within a certain geographic region. Market differentiation, labor laws, environmental concerns, brand tradition, job stimulus (not as national loyalism but as local benevolence / civility), are all rational reasons to build a product in a certain area that have nothing to do with ideological loyalty.
There are good reasons to exclude certain business partners, none of which were raised by Fisher. The only criteria he stated was nationality.
What is the difference between "local benevolence" and Nationalism if the consequence is that nationals are treated in preference compared to other individuals?
> Yes, globalization has serious downsides – but only because it happens with nations still existing
So...
A) What do you propose in lieu of nations
B) How does your proposal in (A) fix the issue of disparate living costs across the globe? It costs less to hire an Indian developer than it does to hire an Australian developer than it does to hire a German developer. When we abolish nations, how will this be resolved?
The cost of living difference is a consequence of the problems rather than the problem itself.
The real problems are a combination of vastly different worker protections/health and safety/environmental laws etc, and the huge disparity between the freedom of movement for jobs v the freedom of movement for workers.
Jobs can easily head towards the cheapest, least regulated economy, but workers are prevented both legally and economically from moving towards the places with the best working conditions.
As a result, countries competing for jobs have only a single set of pressures (the pressure to reduce wages) that they need to worry about. And when workers in these countries do manage to achieve a modest increase in working conditions and therefore wages, the employers can simply pack up shop and head to the next cheap market.
> Jobs can easily head towards the cheapest, least regulated economy, but workers are prevented both legally and economically from moving towards the places with the best working conditions.
Ah, the ideal of perfect labour mobility. Even if we did remove the legal and economic restrictions, we still can't achieve perfect labour mobility without breaking down a person's social ties to family, friends and community. Although some neoliberals have put a lot of effort into doing so.
> And when workers in these countries do manage to achieve a modest increase in working conditions and therefore wages, the employers can simply pack up shop and head to the next cheap market.
It's true, just as "Made in Japan" and "Made in Taiwan" were once considered how "Made in China" is today. And now we see the rising wages in China triggering manufacturers moving to Indonesia and the Philippines.
In this regard at least, the globalisation of manufacturing is a force for good. I presume that they'll run out of countries to move to eventually.
> Ah, the ideal of perfect labour mobility. Even if we did remove the legal and economic restrictions, we still can't achieve perfect labour mobility without breaking down a person's social ties to family, friends and community. Although some neoliberals have put a lot of effort into doing so.
I wasn't arguing for the ideal of labour mobility. I was pointing out that in its absence, the reality of almost unrestrained job mobility creates a huge disparity between employers and employees.
>In this regard at least, the globalisation of manufacturing is a force for good.
Is it? How? The jobs are still heading to the cheapest economies and they are the cheapest economies because they provide the least amount of workers rights/environmental protections etc.
They may run out of countries to move to eventually, but it's at least equally likely that those countries where wages/conditions had risen when demand was high will have those improved wages/conditions slashed again once the demand has moved elsewhere and the jobs will simply rotate between whichever of these economies is able to offer the least protected, worst paid and move malliable workforce at any give time.
> ad-hoc bullshit reasoning to justify nationalism
Right, this is the way to convince someone you disagree with. Do you think the person you're arguing with is EVIL? Or is it merely a matter of disagreement over the best methods to achieve commonly agreed-on good outcomes?
If there are good reasons to do something a certain way then there is no need to plaster nationalist labels all over it and employ nationalist propaganda. Those are just weak excuses for nationalism.
Also, more often than not anti-globalization is just disguised nationalism. At least the brand of anti-globalization that would say something like “100% US made”. Yes, globalization has serious downsides – but only because it happens with nations still existing.