3 ms·
There are two points in the article which placed next to each other might seem contradictory but they aren't. First, > Globalization seems to have delivered u
by denzil_correa 9y ago
There are two points in the article which placed next to each other might seem contradictory but they aren't.
First,
> Globalization seems to have delivered up to private parties hard-won competitive advantages that were really the common property of American society.
Second,
> In order to work, free-trade systems must be frictionless and immune to interruption, forever. This means a program of intellectual property protection, zero tariffs, and cross-border traffic in everything, including migrants. This can be assured only in a system that is veto-proof and non-consultative—in short, undemocratic. That is why it is those who have benefited most from globalization who have been leading the counterattack against the democracy movements arising all over the West.
Most people I've heard from or met accept one of these two points but not both.
- zip1234 9y agoWe are on some continuum of globalization. What's best for a single country may not be best for all countries. Governments should be looking at the long game as much as what happens along the way. People in the US right now seem to be only focused on the 'right now.' What happens when Chinese wages get as high as the wages in the US? It will happen eventually as long as the market is free.
- Fireflite 9y agoWhy is asymmetric intellectual property protection a form of friction here?
- smitherfield 9y agoSuppose an American company spends $2 billion developing a new drug (or microchip, etc) and an Indian (Chinese, Brazilian...) company starts selling unauthorized copies at a 95% discount. (And then, the news media and politicians cite that price differential as evidence for how extremely evil your company is).