5 ms·

> Maybe I am lacking some context or some value system that the anti-globalist have and which might have its merits, and if so I would love to hear the argument

by rfrank 10y ago

> Maybe I am lacking some context or some value system that the anti-globalist have and which might have its merits, and if so I would love to hear the argument, but to me the idea of "this person is more valuable or interesting to me because it was born my neighbor than anyone born a hundred miles away" seems to lack some ethical foundation. Why? People care more about what happens around them. I care more about housing issues in the Bay Area than I do the same problem in New York. I care more about Oakland crime rates than Chicago crime rates. People care more about things that directly impact them and those close to them. If people see their hometowns and communities falling apart when the main industry moves overseas, and only receive second-order benefits like slightly reduced price of good a few years later, what incentive do they have to support globalism?

lazaroclapp 10y ago
Their children's having better opportunities as wealth created by their countries participation in globalized trade creates chances for improved education, scientific advancement and new industries? Don't get me wrong, we are failing many of those communities. But is not a failure to stop globalization, it is a failure to share the gains of globalization more broadly with those most affected by its negatives. We can do both. Is not either let them starve or stop global trade, both can be prevented. Besides, a lot of those industries that keep being brought up as examples of victims of globalization only ever got to be as significant as they were due to globalization: consider the American manufacturing industry, which greatly increased in significance after WW2 mostly due to the demand for its production in war-ravaged Europe. Or the American agricultural industry, where people complain about Mexican workers "stealing" jobs, while ignoring that Mexico consumes $17.7 billion of that agricultural production from U.S. exports.
- rfrank 10y ago
  That's not reality though. Their schools are failing, opiate addiction is rising, and opportunity is drying up. We are failing essentially all of those communities. Global corporations have no incentive to share the gains of their decisions with the communities they damage. Pressure to make them do so will likely just quicken the pace of automation, not suddenly make people care about the plight of the middle America. We can do both, but if the history of globalization is any indicator, we won't.
  - lazaroclapp 10y ago
    Fair enough, but you really consider isolationism, trade barriers and anti-immigrant rhetoric either significantly more feasible than or preferable to trying to improve wealth and opportunity distribution? Do you think forcing companies to bring manufacturing to the U.S. and fire foreign workers will result in anything else than automation, loss of foreign markets for U.S. companies and even further poverty for these communities, absent any other measure or the political will to help them? It seems to me just as hard to assist them under nationalism as under globalism, and globalism still has at the least the potential of doing better. For my part my current view is that I should try to both champion globalism and try to make it do better in whatever small sphere of influence I have.
    - rfrank 10y ago
      Yes, I think trade barriers are both more feasible and preferable. I perceive automation as a constant, it's happening no matter what. Enforcing a border adjustment tax is easier than trying to remove every international tax loophole a la the double Irish. How is reshoring not trying to improve wealth and opportunity distribution, just with the benefactor being Americans and not the factory town in SEA or Central/South America? How does it not "have the potential to do better"? Someone keeping or re-gaining a job in their field is better. Those people contributing to their cities and towns in the form of taxes and other spending makes them better. I work in electronics manufacturing, and people are generally pretty excited about the potential changes.
      - lazaroclapp 10y ago
        You assume the rest of the world will remain open to you as you slam the door in their faces. At best you might end up in a situation where you don't have to compete with Shenzhen in your local market, but where all other markets are closed to you and open to them. Except now you won't even have access to collaborating with Shenzhen and other significant electronics hubs. I think you underestimate how much wealth moves into the U.S. because of globalization and has since the early 20th century. Now, you can argue that you won't go completely closed, but I think you will lose out in proportion to how much you close things, specially if you do it to the point that other countries find themselves needing to retaliate with their own trade barriers and alternative trade treaties, and even more so if at the same time you are also restricting flow of talent into the U.S.

by rfrank 10y ago

lazaroclapp 10y ago

Their children's having better opportunities as wealth created by their countries participation in globalized trade creates chances for improved education, scientific advancement and new industries? Don't get me wrong, we are failing many of those communities. But is not a failure to stop globalization, it is a failure to share the gains of globalization more broadly with those most affected by its negatives. We can do both. Is not either let them starve or stop global trade, both can be prevented. Besides, a lot of those industries that keep being brought up as examples of victims of globalization only ever got to be as significant as they were due to globalization: consider the American manufacturing industry, which greatly increased in significance after WW2 mostly due to the demand for its production in war-ravaged Europe. Or the American agricultural industry, where people complain about Mexican workers "stealing" jobs, while ignoring that Mexico consumes $17.7 billion of that agricultural production from U.S. exports.

rfrank 10y ago
That's not reality though. Their schools are failing, opiate addiction is rising, and opportunity is drying up. We are failing essentially all of those communities. Global corporations have no incentive to share the gains of their decisions with the communities they damage. Pressure to make them do so will likely just quicken the pace of automation, not suddenly make people care about the plight of the middle America. We can do both, but if the history of globalization is any indicator, we won't.
- lazaroclapp 10y ago
  Fair enough, but you really consider isolationism, trade barriers and anti-immigrant rhetoric either significantly more feasible than or preferable to trying to improve wealth and opportunity distribution? Do you think forcing companies to bring manufacturing to the U.S. and fire foreign workers will result in anything else than automation, loss of foreign markets for U.S. companies and even further poverty for these communities, absent any other measure or the political will to help them? It seems to me just as hard to assist them under nationalism as under globalism, and globalism still has at the least the potential of doing better. For my part my current view is that I should try to both champion globalism and try to make it do better in whatever small sphere of influence I have.
  - rfrank 10y ago
    Yes, I think trade barriers are both more feasible and preferable. I perceive automation as a constant, it's happening no matter what. Enforcing a border adjustment tax is easier than trying to remove every international tax loophole a la the double Irish. How is reshoring not trying to improve wealth and opportunity distribution, just with the benefactor being Americans and not the factory town in SEA or Central/South America? How does it not "have the potential to do better"? Someone keeping or re-gaining a job in their field is better. Those people contributing to their cities and towns in the form of taxes and other spending makes them better. I work in electronics manufacturing, and people are generally pretty excited about the potential changes.
    - lazaroclapp 10y ago
      You assume the rest of the world will remain open to you as you slam the door in their faces. At best you might end up in a situation where you don't have to compete with Shenzhen in your local market, but where all other markets are closed to you and open to them. Except now you won't even have access to collaborating with Shenzhen and other significant electronics hubs. I think you underestimate how much wealth moves into the U.S. because of globalization and has since the early 20th century. Now, you can argue that you won't go completely closed, but I think you will lose out in proportion to how much you close things, specially if you do it to the point that other countries find themselves needing to retaliate with their own trade barriers and alternative trade treaties, and even more so if at the same time you are also restricting flow of talent into the U.S.