Globalisation is not as inevitable as you make out, and it is not at all clear it is for the greater good. What does the greater good even mean in this case? Gl

Globalisation is not as inevitable as you make out, and it is not at all clear it is for the greater good. What does the greater good even mean in this case? Globalisation is definitely good for the holders of capital, because they can move it wherever it gives the best return. If you study the history of free trade (See [1] as an excellent introduction), countries in the past had a lot of policy options available to them to protect and develop their economy/industries. As neoliberalism has become the dominant economic paradigm (i.e. cargo-cult) a lot of the past has been forgotten, and neoliberals will have you believe that the rich countries all got rich following neoliberal policies. This is most definitely not the case. Capital controls, tariff protection and government subsidy are vital tools for protecting infant industries and AND protecting your economy from mercantalists. It is interesting to hear from Americans in this thread, as I would describe the US approach to free trade as somewhat pragmatic. In contrast, Australia is has an extremely ideological pro-free-trade policy position. We do not subsidise agriculture, or car manufacturing, have low tariffs and almost no capital controls. This approach, amongst other policy decisions, has not left us with a robust or diverse economy. In contrast, the US fights hard in trade negotiations to protect its domestic agricultural markets, defense and intellectual property industries, whereas Australia will sign everything away for the faintest promise of maybe some possibly freer access to US sugar markets (see TPP negotiations) which will probably never happen since the US will find a way to keep us out. [1] http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1032019.Bad_Samaritans http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1032019.Bad_Samaritans