UniversalMomentum t1_j63ckjc wrote
Anybody who thinks globalism would go away anytime soon has lost their mind. Globalism will be around about as long as we need global trade, which is probably forever.
Globalism doesn't just mean you make stuff in other countries. In many cases to compete in a region you have to build infrastructure there. To sell you commodities you need a 'commodity plant' and the logistics of having the processing plant near the materials and customers doesn't change all that much even with unlimited automation. You will always have globalism because you will always have modern trade and manufacturing and they will dictate these shared mutual development scenarios.
You want resource X, long term you probably have to give the source country a share of the industry, it's not an especially complicated idea and it's not going away.
It's also the single biggest form of wealth redistribution and normalization of massive wealth difference between nations. There has been no greater charity to the developed world in all human history than opening up the doors of globalism to break off the shackles of having developing nations closely tied to developed nations, which is how we did it before globalization and just meant more global poverty.
Isolationists may like it, but the end result is lower global GDP growth and that does come back to haunt the developed nations too in less of that awesome developed market growth where you see the biggest profit margins still. You also lose global influence with less global trade and industrial cooperate, which is all globalism means.
To be against globalism is basically to be against global trade and it's a rather ridiculous position. It's right up there with trying to blame thousands of years of human greed on capitalism. Like humans need capitalism to be greedy! We don't even need language to be greedy! We are greed incarnate!
Surur t1_j63n2df wrote
> It's also the single biggest form of wealth redistribution and normalization of massive wealth difference between nations.
This is what people object against really, but it should be obvious that a making poor nations richer makes everyone safer, in the same way making people in a poor part of a city richer helps everyone be safer.
mhornberger t1_j69hduh wrote
> it should be obvious that a making poor nations richer makes everyone safer
I think the problem there is that many romanticize poverty, at least poverty of others. If only it wasn't for the corrupting influences of advertising and television and whatnot, the theory goes, these people would be content and happy with their subsistence agriculture. It's just a slightly updated version of the Noble Savage myth.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_j66rwtq wrote
>making poor nations richer makes everyone safer
I grew up next to a country that went from very poor to doing pretty darn well within short 20 years. That large country then proceeded to perform a full-scale invasion on the neighbor.
What I am saying, is that maybe that is not exactly how it works. If nation's wealth is built by honest work and evolution of society and institutions, then sure. But if a nation just stroke random gold, then there is far less correlation between richer and safer.
And forced redistribution of wealth from the rich countries to the poorer ones, that is not coupled with natural or forced institutions and society building, will not achieve good results.
Surur t1_j67pjfb wrote
Quite true. I assume you mean Russia, but it could be so many another countries.
But this is why for example exporting businesses is better than extractive economies, as it relies more on the existence of good governance and citizen prosperity in a country.
ribblle t1_j64cy8f wrote
At the moment it's making them richer. At the moment.
Surur t1_j64jr1l wrote
And whether those countries invest that money into ongoing development is up to them.
sir_Edguhhh t1_j63cxqm wrote
Mfs really be like “cHiNa Is dOne iN tHe nExT 10 years” like wtf none of the things those people say make sense . I feel like this conspiracy theory is just a pump nd dump
Cuck-In-Chief t1_j65ccem wrote
China has a lot of unique headwinds. A population bomb, an authoritarian regime that has consolidated the most power in one man since Mao, ghost cities of shit infrastructure, along with a mortgage process that is slanted against individual owners and values that don’t correspond with investment. Also their constant regional bullying and crazy Covid restrictions have underscored the need for alternative markets in SE Asia. They have a lot of sectors that could go tits-up in the next decade. The odds of China in 10 years looking anything like China now is slim. Likely it won’t be a favorable transformation.
Dsstar666 t1_j64ze0t wrote
100% agree with you outside your last two sentences. Most people aren't greedy to the level you're describing. The problem is our systems reward the greediest. Thus, that's all we see. Thus, that's all we think we are. We're not greed incarnate. But we are still genetically wired as if we're fighting mammoths during the Ice Age. So it tends to make a lot of us horde and be selfish with resources. That's not greed necessarily. It's survival instincts in a world that no longer requires that level of self-preservation (Mostly). Its the same reason for xenophobia.
Nor is it something that is specifically Human. All animals are inherently greedy and selfish. Because the jungle is killed or be killed and you never know when your next meal will come. Hell, I have hummingbird feeders. Multiple. Always full. But one hummingbird, who was the first to show up, constantly fights any new approacher, despite that there is obviously enough to go around.
Idk why I went on this rant. But reddit is almost exclusively a self hate, nihilistic, "we shouldn't exist", "all humans suck" tirade, so I try to put my two cents every now and then. (This wasn't aimed at you. Loved your post) so I expect this to get downvoted to hell. goes back to drinking tea
Test19s t1_j65fgp1 wrote
Bonobos are not particularly selfish although they do engage in some unnecessary predation, but I do think it’s amazing what humanity has been able to come up with and I still have some hope that we can improve the flawed natural universe to be a bit more cooperative.
Nightgaun7 t1_j63mhla wrote
Being against globalism isn't ridiculous. It might be a difficult position to maintain, but that's not the same thing.
FullM3TaLJacK3T t1_j63z45m wrote
The fact that our phone/laptop/tablet has parts made in India, China Taiwan, US and possible other countries is as a result of globalisation. Being against globalisation, in my opinion, is next to impossible nowadays, because even if you choose to shun technology and use pen/pencil, those would still be made elsewhere!
Unless one decides to be hypocritical, be against globalisation, but yet embrace their nice tech gadgets being cheap.
Rainbows871 t1_j645d0i wrote
You disagree with society yet participate in it, I am very intelligent
Hoarfrosty t1_j65x1h0 wrote
Man, I’m so glad you pointed out capitalism doesn’t cause greed. I’m a lefty, but I love the capitalism/ socialism hybrid we have. The ethics, regulation, and enforcement issues cause the problems. Not the idea of using capital to invest for returns.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_j66ql48 wrote
>Globalism will be around about as long as we need global trade, which is probably forever.
It would be a shame if there was a time in history when global trade existed fine without politics of globalism, for such precedent would completely shatter this line of thinking...
TheLastSamurai t1_j65csh6 wrote
Well that’s what’s happening. America is in a struggle against BRICS for currency dominance, energy independence, and pole position of leading economy. You’re right it’s actually worse for us all, but the US govt wants to be adversarial with China, as do most on Reddit
giveuporfindaway t1_j671ngl wrote
Wondering if you've heard of Peter Zeihan. In particular you can see his book "The End of the World Is Just the Beginning: Mapping the Collapse of Globalization". He is personally in favor of globalism but he does believe globalism is going away. Some of his reasons why include:
- The US navy no longer has the class of ships to ensure global policing in international waterways. This requires about 700 destroyers and we have about 60ish.
- With the absence of the US navy policing international waters, piracy will increase, which will make long supply chains unstable.
- A majority of countries that participated in globalization by supplying cheap labor essentially had a generational surplus of agrarian labor that moved into cities. This same generation did not have children at replacement levels. Most of these countries are in demographic collapse. China is the best example of this. So essentially they had a one time advantageous ticket to spend and its been spent.
- The United States is natural powerhouse in manufacturing and can produce many things cheaper than many other countries. The only reason manufacturing hasn't entirely returned is due to the sunken cost in other countries.
DropsTheMic t1_j675vxr wrote
Agreed, who thought globalization was going anywhere? Did the internet shut down when I wasn't looking? Did word wide commerce stop at some point?...
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments