7 ms·

"Globalization helped bolster economies around the world, including China’s, and is now allowing a class of wealthy people and companies from those economies to

"Globalization helped bolster economies around the world, including China’s, and is now allowing a class of wealthy people and companies from those economies to invest in the United States, creating jobs in depressed regions like Ohio." So instead of Americans owning American companies, and employing 100% American labor, most of the factories have shut down, and the ones that are left are owned and operated by the Chinese and employ a large fraction of foreign workers, although not a majority. How on Earth is this better? The globalists at The Atlantic have clearly outdone themselves with this backwards logic.

zionic 9y ago
It's not about what's better, but about systematically weakening western powers.
scottLobster 9y ago
It is fair by the laws of Capitalism. China is roughly 3x the US population. If everything is distributed "fairly" by the invisible hand, they should end up with a larger piece of the economic pie. Whether we as Americans want that or should want that is another issue.
- ams6110 9y ago
  Distributing "fairly" (as in equally) is not what capitalism does.
  - geezerjay 9y ago
    Capitalism is all about fairness, because income depends on competition. Ceteris paribus, China's size means it has a larger market, more competitors and therefore a larger market share.
  - scottLobster 9y ago
    Which is why I'm using the invisible hand definition of "fair". The principle of the invisible hand, a cornerstone of modern capitalism, is that when everyone does what is in their own best interest things are distributed most fairly. Not saying I agree with it, but that's the moral theory.
Houshalter 9y ago
The factory jobs were doomed anyway. Look at American steel production. We produce 80% of the steel we used to, but only employ 20% of the workers. And in a few years it will probably be a lot less than that because of improving automation technology. Does it really matter if it was a Chinese or a robot that took your job? Economically it's superior. If a robot, or a Chinese factory, can produce goods cheaper, why not take advantage of it? Cheaper goods benefit everyone. The pie isn't finite. A more efficient economy means a bigger pie, not fewer slices.
deanCommie 9y ago
Better for who - better for Americans? Or better for the world? This is the free market in action. It has dictated people want chinese goods more at their price point than american goods at theirs. The overall quality of life worldwide has gone up. 96% of the world's population - 7.2 billion people are not American. If you are a human being you should be happy humanity is better rather than selfishly worrying about the 4% of the world whose lives improved less than the rest.
- bobabooey02 9y ago
  This is all well and good if you live in a wealthy family in the US. However, the global economy means nothing to me if my entire family is seeing a declining quality of life, I have to wait for years and go tens of thousands of dollars in debt to find a good job, and I live in fear of getting sick because I don't know how I'll afford it. That's why my priorities are for my family first, country second, and global "community" last. If globalization is needed so badly to lift the world, we need to find a way to change it in a way that doesn't destabilize us in the process.
  - geon 9y ago
    > and I live in fear of getting sick because I don't know how I'll afford it Thats an unrelated issue that much of the rest of the world has solved a long time ago.
    - bobabooey02 9y ago
      It is related to the declining quality of life Americans are experiencing. If the economy was still incredibly unequal but quality of life was still going up, there wouldn't be nearly as much disdain for the rich as there is right now.
    - ams6110 9y ago
      From the article, it didn't sound like the Chinese are exactly generous with sick time. Admittedly it wasn't directly addressed other than by the general "Chinese workers work more hours" observation.
microcolonel 9y ago
This is the problem with a welfare state: it makes industrial and border protection into an absolute necessity.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  I don't see the connection between welfare and globalization. Explain?
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    If you have a welfare state then you need borders and immigration control to keep people from exploiting it. If your government relies on labour inefficiency for revenue (as a welfare state does) then globalization will impoverish your government, driving up tax rates; and since this is unsustainable, you must inevitably protect national labour.
    - wazoox 9y ago
      Notice that the countries with the largest welfare states in the world (Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway) fare better by far in global indexes of happiness, human development, freedom, democracy, etc.
    - prodmerc 9y ago
      By welfare state you mean states with extreme income inequality? Because Europe does pretty well on welfare, because it taxes the rich more. And it has protectionism too, which helps.
    - CalRobert 9y ago
      This is a really good point. It's the only argument I've heard against a strong social safety net that makes sense, and I really don't know a good counter. If you have government-provided health care, government-provided university, etc. then you are very likely to _have_ to restrict immigration since there will be people from places that do not offer those things who wish to avail of it. After all, you'd be foolish not to. If every sick American without health insurance could just pop over to Canada to get treated for free it would bankrupt Canada. I am a supporter of single payer health care and vastly reduced tuition (or the elimination of the university's role in modern society, but that's another conversation), but I also like the idea of freedom to travel and open borders, and I've never found a way to square the two. I used to burn with envy when I read that such and such writer or artist moved to Paris from the US like it was no problem at all - how was it possible 100 years ago but not now? France offered fewer protections then, and had less to lose from letting people in.
pliny 9y ago
>Americans[1] owning American[2] companies, and employing 100% American[3] labor Americans[1] is not the same as Americans[3], there is some overlap (in the sense that Americans can own shares in US companies) but Americans[1] are mostly aristocrats, and whether those aristocrats live in New York or Shanghai shouldn't matter much to Americans[3]. Besides that, "most of the factories have shut down" is false, American manufacturing hasn't shrunk, it just employs less people and more capital. Most Americans ([1] and [3]) work in the service sector now. This is a change that is orthogonal to the nationality of factory owners, and is coming to China soon enough.

zionic 9y ago

It's not about what's better, but about systematically weakening western powers.

scottLobster 9y ago

It is fair by the laws of Capitalism. China is roughly 3x the US population. If everything is distributed "fairly" by the invisible hand, they should end up with a larger piece of the economic pie. Whether we as Americans want that or should want that is another issue.

ams6110 9y ago
Distributing "fairly" (as in equally) is not what capitalism does.
- geezerjay 9y ago
  Capitalism is all about fairness, because income depends on competition. Ceteris paribus, China's size means it has a larger market, more competitors and therefore a larger market share.
- scottLobster 9y ago
  Which is why I'm using the invisible hand definition of "fair". The principle of the invisible hand, a cornerstone of modern capitalism, is that when everyone does what is in their own best interest things are distributed most fairly. Not saying I agree with it, but that's the moral theory.

Houshalter 9y ago

The factory jobs were doomed anyway. Look at American steel production. We produce 80% of the steel we used to, but only employ 20% of the workers. And in a few years it will probably be a lot less than that because of improving automation technology. Does it really matter if it was a Chinese or a robot that took your job? Economically it's superior. If a robot, or a Chinese factory, can produce goods cheaper, why not take advantage of it? Cheaper goods benefit everyone. The pie isn't finite. A more efficient economy means a bigger pie, not fewer slices.

deanCommie 9y ago

Better for who - better for Americans? Or better for the world? This is the free market in action. It has dictated people want chinese goods more at their price point than american goods at theirs. The overall quality of life worldwide has gone up. 96% of the world's population - 7.2 billion people are not American. If you are a human being you should be happy humanity is better rather than selfishly worrying about the 4% of the world whose lives improved less than the rest.

bobabooey02 9y ago
This is all well and good if you live in a wealthy family in the US. However, the global economy means nothing to me if my entire family is seeing a declining quality of life, I have to wait for years and go tens of thousands of dollars in debt to find a good job, and I live in fear of getting sick because I don't know how I'll afford it. That's why my priorities are for my family first, country second, and global "community" last. If globalization is needed so badly to lift the world, we need to find a way to change it in a way that doesn't destabilize us in the process.
- geon 9y ago
  > and I live in fear of getting sick because I don't know how I'll afford it Thats an unrelated issue that much of the rest of the world has solved a long time ago.
  - bobabooey02 9y ago
    It is related to the declining quality of life Americans are experiencing. If the economy was still incredibly unequal but quality of life was still going up, there wouldn't be nearly as much disdain for the rich as there is right now.
  - ams6110 9y ago
    From the article, it didn't sound like the Chinese are exactly generous with sick time. Admittedly it wasn't directly addressed other than by the general "Chinese workers work more hours" observation.

microcolonel 9y ago

This is the problem with a welfare state: it makes industrial and border protection into an absolute necessity.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
I don't see the connection between welfare and globalization. Explain?
- microcolonel 9y ago
  If you have a welfare state then you need borders and immigration control to keep people from exploiting it. If your government relies on labour inefficiency for revenue (as a welfare state does) then globalization will impoverish your government, driving up tax rates; and since this is unsustainable, you must inevitably protect national labour.
  - wazoox 9y ago
    Notice that the countries with the largest welfare states in the world (Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway) fare better by far in global indexes of happiness, human development, freedom, democracy, etc.
  - prodmerc 9y ago
    By welfare state you mean states with extreme income inequality? Because Europe does pretty well on welfare, because it taxes the rich more. And it has protectionism too, which helps.
  - CalRobert 9y ago
    This is a really good point. It's the only argument I've heard against a strong social safety net that makes sense, and I really don't know a good counter. If you have government-provided health care, government-provided university, etc. then you are very likely to _have_ to restrict immigration since there will be people from places that do not offer those things who wish to avail of it. After all, you'd be foolish not to. If every sick American without health insurance could just pop over to Canada to get treated for free it would bankrupt Canada. I am a supporter of single payer health care and vastly reduced tuition (or the elimination of the university's role in modern society, but that's another conversation), but I also like the idea of freedom to travel and open borders, and I've never found a way to square the two. I used to burn with envy when I read that such and such writer or artist moved to Paris from the US like it was no problem at all - how was it possible 100 years ago but not now? France offered fewer protections then, and had less to lose from letting people in.

pliny 9y ago

>Americans[1] owning American[2] companies, and employing 100% American[3] labor Americans[1] is not the same as Americans[3], there is some overlap (in the sense that Americans can own shares in US companies) but Americans[1] are mostly aristocrats, and whether those aristocrats live in New York or Shanghai shouldn't matter much to Americans[3]. Besides that, "most of the factories have shut down" is false, American manufacturing hasn't shrunk, it just employs less people and more capital. Most Americans ([1] and [3]) work in the service sector now. This is a change that is orthogonal to the nationality of factory owners, and is coming to China soon enough.