5 ms·

> What Globalization should have been is a butter smooth system to trade goods and services. > Concentrating all manufacturing in China leads to power centrali

> What Globalization should have been is a butter smooth system to trade goods and services. > Concentrating all manufacturing in China leads to power centralization, as is evident, and forms the basis of creation of another hegemony. Sorry but 2 is an effect of 1, free trade leads to concentration. * Iceland has plenty of fish, they do the fishing and buy everything else. * Ukraine has good farmland, they grow all the crops and buy everything else. * China has cheap labor, they do all the labor intensive manufacturing and buy everything else. It is national economics 101.

pas 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage International organizations (like WTO, WIPO [even if we think the copyright is too long, and most of patents are dumb, etc] various UN projects), free trade agreements and such are supposed to keep that "power centralization" in check (eg. with things like ISDS and so on). But in the end we can't just ignore politics and hope for the best. Yes, maybe, maaaaybe in the graaaaaaaaaaand scheme of things we can. (After all if humanity fuck up so much that we go extinct maybe that's "the best".) But, but, it also doesn't mean that markets and free trade doesn't work. (They work, but they are not miracle tools.)
- mschuster91 5y ago
  > International organizations (like WTO, WIPO [even if we think the copyright is too long, and most of patents are dumb, etc] various UN projects), free trade agreements and such are supposed to keep that "power centralization" in check (eg. with things like ISDS and so on). Unfortunately, almost all historic international organizations (no matter if the UN, EU, NATO or anything else - hell, even the WHO!) operate on a fundamental requirement of trust and the assumption that there are no obstructionist forces and everyone largely plays by the established rules. This fundamental assumption has been dismantled, starting in the early 90s with the collapse of the USSR... now we have the US and Israel blocking every investigation into war crimes (I do understand the reason though, given anti-Zionist resentments across the world), China not willing anyone to investigate what happened at Tiananmen Square or in the Uyghur concentration camps or with Covid, the Russians protecting the criminal Assad regime, Turkey fighting with Greece, Hungary and Poland blocking anything that could help refugees or hold their regimes accountable for corruption and a boatload of other bullshit.
- OneTimePetes 5y ago
  Sure, like the general assembly is not voted on by almost all of them by countrys, who then get economic-hegemonic-ally sacked. This is the trouble with almost all international institutions - they are deeply subverted by economic interests. This goes from the human right council barely condemning genocide, if it is committed by economic ruling partys to WHO recommendations, towing the party line when it comes to them damaging economic interests.
  - Nasrudith 5y ago
    That isn't economic interests - it is raw military power. Although the two do correlate at times.
rbanffy 5y ago
What if you live in Ukraine and want to build microprocessors or live in China and likes to be well paid and have worker rights? Globalisation creates more inequality.
- fifilura 5y ago
  It is an idealized example of what free trade gives you. Every resource is used optimally. The argument for it is that the end result is more wealth for "everyone" (on average!)
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    > Every resource is used optimally. Would you like to be used optimally? As in, extracting the maximum work possible for as little compensation as possible? There are animal rights groups that won't let you do that to horses. > The argument for it is that the end result is more wealth for "everyone" (on average!) Looking at the average and not paying attention to the distribution is a mistake.
    - fifilura 5y ago
      I am not arguing for either. Note the quotes around "everyone" and the exclamation mark after average. Non optimal resource allocation -> less overall wealth. And free global market is the machine that has optimal resource allocation as optimization goal.
      - rbanffy 5y ago
        > Non optimal resource allocation -> less overall wealth. Unless the wealth is well distributed, it makes no difference for the bulk of the population whose bodies are being optimally allocated.
        fifilura 5y ago
        Your comment is fine. And accurate. But I am arguing from the standpoint of "global-trade-as-a-machine". And in this case an idealized machine with only one dimension (fish or crops or labor). Of course if you live in Ukraine and have only one leg and love developing microprocessors, the "global-trade-as-a-machine" will pick that up and let you work on that rather than work as a farmer (one-leggedness and interest/drive as two new dimensions). (Although just as likely it will allow you to move to another country to pursue your interest.) And of course governments have noticed the inequalities produced by this machine and are doing its best to counter that with more or less enthusiasm.
TazeTSchnitzel 5y ago
This plays out clearly in the hyper-free trade bloc that is the EU, where different countries end up specialising in particular stages of the production of meat, for example.

pas 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage International organizations (like WTO, WIPO [even if we think the copyright is too long, and most of patents are dumb, etc] various UN projects), free trade agreements and such are supposed to keep that "power centralization" in check (eg. with things like ISDS and so on). But in the end we can't just ignore politics and hope for the best. Yes, maybe, maaaaybe in the graaaaaaaaaaand scheme of things we can. (After all if humanity fuck up so much that we go extinct maybe that's "the best".) But, but, it also doesn't mean that markets and free trade doesn't work. (They work, but they are not miracle tools.)

mschuster91 5y ago
> International organizations (like WTO, WIPO [even if we think the copyright is too long, and most of patents are dumb, etc] various UN projects), free trade agreements and such are supposed to keep that "power centralization" in check (eg. with things like ISDS and so on). Unfortunately, almost all historic international organizations (no matter if the UN, EU, NATO or anything else - hell, even the WHO!) operate on a fundamental requirement of trust and the assumption that there are no obstructionist forces and everyone largely plays by the established rules. This fundamental assumption has been dismantled, starting in the early 90s with the collapse of the USSR... now we have the US and Israel blocking every investigation into war crimes (I do understand the reason though, given anti-Zionist resentments across the world), China not willing anyone to investigate what happened at Tiananmen Square or in the Uyghur concentration camps or with Covid, the Russians protecting the criminal Assad regime, Turkey fighting with Greece, Hungary and Poland blocking anything that could help refugees or hold their regimes accountable for corruption and a boatload of other bullshit.
OneTimePetes 5y ago
Sure, like the general assembly is not voted on by almost all of them by countrys, who then get economic-hegemonic-ally sacked. This is the trouble with almost all international institutions - they are deeply subverted by economic interests. This goes from the human right council barely condemning genocide, if it is committed by economic ruling partys to WHO recommendations, towing the party line when it comes to them damaging economic interests.
- Nasrudith 5y ago
  That isn't economic interests - it is raw military power. Although the two do correlate at times.

rbanffy 5y ago

What if you live in Ukraine and want to build microprocessors or live in China and likes to be well paid and have worker rights? Globalisation creates more inequality.

fifilura 5y ago
It is an idealized example of what free trade gives you. Every resource is used optimally. The argument for it is that the end result is more wealth for "everyone" (on average!)
- rbanffy 5y ago
  > Every resource is used optimally. Would you like to be used optimally? As in, extracting the maximum work possible for as little compensation as possible? There are animal rights groups that won't let you do that to horses. > The argument for it is that the end result is more wealth for "everyone" (on average!) Looking at the average and not paying attention to the distribution is a mistake.
  - fifilura 5y ago
    I am not arguing for either. Note the quotes around "everyone" and the exclamation mark after average. Non optimal resource allocation -> less overall wealth. And free global market is the machine that has optimal resource allocation as optimization goal.
    - rbanffy 5y ago
      > Non optimal resource allocation -> less overall wealth. Unless the wealth is well distributed, it makes no difference for the bulk of the population whose bodies are being optimally allocated.
      - fifilura 5y ago
        Your comment is fine. And accurate. But I am arguing from the standpoint of "global-trade-as-a-machine". And in this case an idealized machine with only one dimension (fish or crops or labor). Of course if you live in Ukraine and have only one leg and love developing microprocessors, the "global-trade-as-a-machine" will pick that up and let you work on that rather than work as a farmer (one-leggedness and interest/drive as two new dimensions). (Although just as likely it will allow you to move to another country to pursue your interest.) And of course governments have noticed the inequalities produced by this machine and are doing its best to counter that with more or less enthusiasm.

TazeTSchnitzel 5y ago

This plays out clearly in the hyper-free trade bloc that is the EU, where different countries end up specialising in particular stages of the production of meat, for example.