6 ms·

So, this may sound awkward but I'm going to say it anyway: this is what globalization enables. The very fact of sourcing things as elemental as the food you ea

So, this may sound awkward but I'm going to say it anyway: this is what globalization enables. The very fact of sourcing things as elemental as the food you eat, from the other side of the planet (whichever side has the laxest environmental, health, and safety rules), makes this easier. It is easier to live far away from the things your company does, and the people it does them to, if they're on a different continent than you. Moreover, by its very nature globalization enables regulatory arbitrage, so you can live in a country with relatively good EHS rules, and produce in a country with bad or no EHS rules. There is a tradeoff between producing wealth, and trashing your environment, and I don't judge too harshly the people who want to worry about carcinogens later, once they've got enough to eat that they won't starve to death. But that tradeoff used to happen within each country. When it was poor, the production was low, and as their ability to wreck their environment scaled up, so did their wealth to afford not to. Only globalization allows companies like this to descend with 1st World money on places with 3rd world EHS rules. Cargill and its ilk exist, because we changed the rules to make it easier for them to do this.

josho 7y ago
Globalization isn’t necessarily the problem. It’s the rules surrounding trade that perpetuates the problem you outlined. In some alternate universe we could have free trade laws that enshrined environmental, labor, and other protections into law to benefit all. Instead we have laws that are silent (or with what we almost had under TPP toothless) on protections for anything other than corporations.
- ggm 7y ago
  Globalization isn’t necessarily the problem. It’s the rules surrounding trade that perpetuates the problem you outlined. Except I believe the lack of rules, and the specific anti-regulatory pressures of modern neoliberal economic rationalists are one of the underlying axioms of globalization as implemented: Its not a coincidence, it was designed into the DNA.
  - close04 7y ago
    If tomorrow laws were passed that the entire lifecycle of a product sold in a country must fully respect the laws of that country (e.g. a banana sold in the US would have to be grown, transported, etc. according to US rules and regulations, or in other words as if it was done inside the US) then you could guarantee such abuses done on the other side of the world would at least be illegal and hold the company in the US liable. But then the banana would probably become a luxury product and people vote with their wallets. Some countries that rely on this would be gutted and lose a lot of the income making their lives even worse. And it still wouldn't change anything that happens at home and is legal regardless of globalization (cut down a forest to make room for cattle? Lobby says yes). The fact that it happens elsewhere just helps put people's minds at ease. Everybody can now have plausible deniability. But it could happen one town over, if it doesn't affect them directly most will still vote with the wallet. Some can't afford not to. It's not globalization that does this, it's that people want cheap. And if globalization goes away tomorrow they will just find new ways, someone will always have to pay the price so all the rest don't have to. A poor town? An Indian reservation? Some wildlands? Someone will have to "take one for the team" whether it's at home or on the other side of the world.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - josho 7y ago
    My point is simply that globalization doesn’t have to be a bad word. Trade between Canada and the US left both countries better off. Largely because we have similar standard of living so neither country was being exploited. If lawmakers did a better job putting in safeguards into trade laws then globalization wouldn’t be a synonym for exploitation. I do agree with your point that under current political realities nothing is likely to change. I’m simply hopeful that if enough people become aware of this then policy will eventually shift—rather than respond with a knee jerk cancel all trade reaction that we see today.
johncolanduoni 7y ago
Many of the noted violations were on US soil.
phs318u 7y ago
Agreed. I’ve often thought that the banes of regulatory arbitrage and labour arbitrage could be simultaneously killed by allowing the free movement of people across borders. It’s strange to me that corporations and money can cross borders easier than people.
- matthewmacleod 7y ago
  This is ultimately one of the underlying principles of the EU, or at least the single market.
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    And it's not a simple issue. Free movement works well for people who are comfortably off, but tends to trash the economies of those left behind. I don't think FoM is a full solution. The end state is the end of nation states, and especially competitive nation state economies. Not only would this create a multi-trillion dollar peace dividend which could be spent on original R&D and social investment of all kinds, it would also create a massive wealth equalisation, end many of the more obvious and pointless kinds of wealth speculation, and create a global wealth boom, as location became much less important than talent and imagination.
blablabla123 7y ago
>Moreover, by its very nature globalization enables regulatory arbitrage, so you can live in a country with relatively good EHS rules, and produce in a country with bad or no EHS rules. It could be solved by making transitive EHS rules. I.e. rules that require the source also applying these rules. This is still some kind of rarity but they do exist. For instance for years it has been very difficult/impossible to import US meat into the EU because of that. (Mostly because of different antibiotics usage AFAIK.) To some degree such rules also exist in other industries. For example it makes little sense to import a cheaply produced car from a non-EU/non-US vendor into the EU (or probably US) because it won't match the safety regulations and would at least have to go through an expensive individual (re-)certification process, and might even need customizations for that. Of course nobody does this and people buy a cheap FIAT or VW instead. Globalization is really nice I think because it connects countries and people through economy and thus also fostering peace. ;) It could become even much nicer by adapting regulations in the destination markets. Custom tariffs and local subsidies are another way to solve this but those are obviously much less fine-grained (25% on everything :)) and come from a time when there was no globalization. In fact the high EU subsidies on agricultural products still seem to be the reason that impede African countries to export agricultural products into the EU. On the other hand the African market is flooded with subsidised EU produce, making it hard to sell products for small farmers. Probably markets could be far less distorted if the regulations in the industry nations would be modernized... I'm not in favour of any form of turbo capitalism but free markets cannot really be blamed for this because we don't have them anyways.
- piva00 7y ago
  Ideal free markets simply cannot exist when the safety of people is our primary goal. I'm not sure if you meant that with the statement "because we don't have them anyways" so I'm pointing this out loud because on every discussion about regulations and free markets this is one argument I still would haven't heard a good counterpoint to.
- rossdavidh 7y ago
  I don't think free trade between countries is so likely to foster peace. There are many examples, but "gunboat diplomacy" of the U.S. in Japan, and the Opium War in China, are two that come to mind. Even Russia's invasion of Ukraine was in large part because of the prospect of Ukraine joining the EU. But, to your main point, most 3rd world countries don't have the resources to enforce or abide by 1st World EHS rules. That's understandable; we didn't have them in the 1st world when we were at those income levels, either. Plus, most of the trade between the 1st and 3rd worlds exists primarily in order to get lower costs, and most of those lower costs are due to the lack of EHS rules; if you eliminate the EHS arbitrage, you eliminate most of the trade. Which is fine by me, but just eliminating the trade directly is much more plausible than somehow forcing 3rd world countries to spend their money on 1st world levels of government regulatory apparatus.
DenisM 7y ago
>Cargill and its ilk exist, because we changed the rules to make it easier for them to do this. Changed how? Globalization took off 500 years ago and the rules seem to have changed for the better during that time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization

josho 7y ago

Globalization isn’t necessarily the problem. It’s the rules surrounding trade that perpetuates the problem you outlined. In some alternate universe we could have free trade laws that enshrined environmental, labor, and other protections into law to benefit all. Instead we have laws that are silent (or with what we almost had under TPP toothless) on protections for anything other than corporations.

ggm 7y ago
Globalization isn’t necessarily the problem. It’s the rules surrounding trade that perpetuates the problem you outlined. Except I believe the lack of rules, and the specific anti-regulatory pressures of modern neoliberal economic rationalists are one of the underlying axioms of globalization as implemented: Its not a coincidence, it was designed into the DNA.
- close04 7y ago
  If tomorrow laws were passed that the entire lifecycle of a product sold in a country must fully respect the laws of that country (e.g. a banana sold in the US would have to be grown, transported, etc. according to US rules and regulations, or in other words as if it was done inside the US) then you could guarantee such abuses done on the other side of the world would at least be illegal and hold the company in the US liable. But then the banana would probably become a luxury product and people vote with their wallets. Some countries that rely on this would be gutted and lose a lot of the income making their lives even worse. And it still wouldn't change anything that happens at home and is legal regardless of globalization (cut down a forest to make room for cattle? Lobby says yes). The fact that it happens elsewhere just helps put people's minds at ease. Everybody can now have plausible deniability. But it could happen one town over, if it doesn't affect them directly most will still vote with the wallet. Some can't afford not to. It's not globalization that does this, it's that people want cheap. And if globalization goes away tomorrow they will just find new ways, someone will always have to pay the price so all the rest don't have to. A poor town? An Indian reservation? Some wildlands? Someone will have to "take one for the team" whether it's at home or on the other side of the world.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- josho 7y ago
  My point is simply that globalization doesn’t have to be a bad word. Trade between Canada and the US left both countries better off. Largely because we have similar standard of living so neither country was being exploited. If lawmakers did a better job putting in safeguards into trade laws then globalization wouldn’t be a synonym for exploitation. I do agree with your point that under current political realities nothing is likely to change. I’m simply hopeful that if enough people become aware of this then policy will eventually shift—rather than respond with a knee jerk cancel all trade reaction that we see today.

johncolanduoni 7y ago

Many of the noted violations were on US soil.

phs318u 7y ago

Agreed. I’ve often thought that the banes of regulatory arbitrage and labour arbitrage could be simultaneously killed by allowing the free movement of people across borders. It’s strange to me that corporations and money can cross borders easier than people.

matthewmacleod 7y ago
This is ultimately one of the underlying principles of the EU, or at least the single market.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  And it's not a simple issue. Free movement works well for people who are comfortably off, but tends to trash the economies of those left behind. I don't think FoM is a full solution. The end state is the end of nation states, and especially competitive nation state economies. Not only would this create a multi-trillion dollar peace dividend which could be spent on original R&D and social investment of all kinds, it would also create a massive wealth equalisation, end many of the more obvious and pointless kinds of wealth speculation, and create a global wealth boom, as location became much less important than talent and imagination.

blablabla123 7y ago

>Moreover, by its very nature globalization enables regulatory arbitrage, so you can live in a country with relatively good EHS rules, and produce in a country with bad or no EHS rules. It could be solved by making transitive EHS rules. I.e. rules that require the source also applying these rules. This is still some kind of rarity but they do exist. For instance for years it has been very difficult/impossible to import US meat into the EU because of that. (Mostly because of different antibiotics usage AFAIK.) To some degree such rules also exist in other industries. For example it makes little sense to import a cheaply produced car from a non-EU/non-US vendor into the EU (or probably US) because it won't match the safety regulations and would at least have to go through an expensive individual (re-)certification process, and might even need customizations for that. Of course nobody does this and people buy a cheap FIAT or VW instead. Globalization is really nice I think because it connects countries and people through economy and thus also fostering peace. ;) It could become even much nicer by adapting regulations in the destination markets. Custom tariffs and local subsidies are another way to solve this but those are obviously much less fine-grained (25% on everything :)) and come from a time when there was no globalization. In fact the high EU subsidies on agricultural products still seem to be the reason that impede African countries to export agricultural products into the EU. On the other hand the African market is flooded with subsidised EU produce, making it hard to sell products for small farmers. Probably markets could be far less distorted if the regulations in the industry nations would be modernized... I'm not in favour of any form of turbo capitalism but free markets cannot really be blamed for this because we don't have them anyways.

piva00 7y ago
Ideal free markets simply cannot exist when the safety of people is our primary goal. I'm not sure if you meant that with the statement "because we don't have them anyways" so I'm pointing this out loud because on every discussion about regulations and free markets this is one argument I still would haven't heard a good counterpoint to.
rossdavidh 7y ago
I don't think free trade between countries is so likely to foster peace. There are many examples, but "gunboat diplomacy" of the U.S. in Japan, and the Opium War in China, are two that come to mind. Even Russia's invasion of Ukraine was in large part because of the prospect of Ukraine joining the EU. But, to your main point, most 3rd world countries don't have the resources to enforce or abide by 1st World EHS rules. That's understandable; we didn't have them in the 1st world when we were at those income levels, either. Plus, most of the trade between the 1st and 3rd worlds exists primarily in order to get lower costs, and most of those lower costs are due to the lack of EHS rules; if you eliminate the EHS arbitrage, you eliminate most of the trade. Which is fine by me, but just eliminating the trade directly is much more plausible than somehow forcing 3rd world countries to spend their money on 1st world levels of government regulatory apparatus.

DenisM 7y ago

>Cargill and its ilk exist, because we changed the rules to make it easier for them to do this. Changed how? Globalization took off 500 years ago and the rules seem to have changed for the better during that time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization