4 ms·

Such a textbook example of confirmation bias. You have certain conviction, and you dig deep until you find some references to it, and then declare that your con

Such a textbook example of confirmation bias. You have certain conviction, and you dig deep until you find some references to it, and then declare that your conviction is vindicated. My conviction is that the growth in corporate profits is driven primarily by technology advance and globalization. And no, globalization is not a one way street, only benefiting corporates. China achieve their economy growth and their status as superpower, lifting a billion people out of poverty, thank in no small part to the large and rich market of developed countries they've been able to access. The growth is slow down because temporary roadblocks such as the pandemic and financial measures countries adopted to counter it. Geopolitics also play a role. Globalization is well and alive still, and while it will evolve, it is not reversible. We will not go back to the world pre-1990s.

gazarullz 4y ago
What makes you think that it wont reverse? Look at what is happening to the chip wars between Us, EU and China, and the energy crisis in Europe. My thought is that we are witnessing the beginning of the end of globalization.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  That happens every time an empire declines. The Roman empire had a globalized economy, and that ended up collapsing into the medieval period of hyper-localization. The collapse of the Dutch and British empires had similar results. The American empire is collapsing now, and globalization is the first casualty. Fun fact: Victorian England even had several very successful uber-like businesses (phone ordering aggregators in this case).
Aunche 4y ago
It's funny that that anti-globalists like to frame it as them caring about the "poor sweatshop workers" without considering the sentiments of those workers. They think that taking away the little economic choice that these people have would be a great boon for them. Globalization isn't just good for developing nations, it benefits developed ones as well. American's dominance in technology, finance, and entertainment would not be possible to sustain without it.
- leereeves 4y ago
  > American's dominance in technology, finance, and entertainment would not be possible to sustain without it. Yes, without it, other nations could develop competitive industries at the top of the food chain and their citizens would have options other than working in sweatshops. Globalization comes packaged with many demands that primarily benefit Western corporations and make it very difficult to rise above subservience. (China rose largely because they ignored these demands, violated Western intellectual property laws, restricted the transfer of money in and out of the country, heavily regulated foreign companies, and had enough strength not to be sanctioned, invaded, or overthrown for doing so.)
  - cuteboy19 4y ago
    Ok thats just wrong. Many asian countries developed their own competitive industries because the west outsourced some labor there. India/China both followed the same path Also, have you considered the opinion of the "sweatshop" workers because for them the options are "sweatshop" or not working at all
    - leereeves 4y ago
      Citing China as an example of the success of globalism and free trade is an interesting choice. They have a protectionist economy, and it was the most successful economy over the last forty years. China seems to have proven the benefits of protectionism. And I'm arguing that sweatshop workers would have options other than "'sweatshop' or not working at all" if free trade weren't killing any opportunity they might have to develop local industries. Their situation is not entirely unlike a small town in America when a WalMart opens, kills the local businesses, and the only remaining jobs are at WalMart.
    - Ekaros 4y ago
      Subsistence farming is what lot of these workers come from. The factories or even sweatshops might not be perfect, but with increased population they are preferable to working fields with all the risks that involve.
    - 4y ago
photochemsyn 4y ago
Note the article early on states: > "This note's key finding is that the reduction in interest and tax expenses is responsible for a full one-third of all profit growth for S&P 500 nonfinancial firms over the prior two-decade period" Even if accurate, where is the other 2/3 coming from? You'd think the primary issue would be more explicitly noted. As far as China, their escape from famine-level poverty took place well before the neoliberal outsourcing program adopted China as one of its preferred sweatshop zones (along with Mexico, Indonesia, India, Philippines, Bangladesh, Honduras, etc.) - it really began with importation of ammonia fertilizer factories in the 1970s under the Nixon agreements, which really ended the famine era. The big change wrt the USA and China took place in 2000-2001, with WTO membership. While NAFTA had already been gutting the US manufacturing sector for the past half-decade, the explosion took off after that (just look at any major box store and count the items with 'made in China' labels). Fundamentally, the neoliberal project is all about 'liberating' international pools of capital from the restrictions (tariffs, sourcing requirements, capital transfer fees, etc.) imposed by nation-states, as a means of putting more and more wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands. It's profoundly anti-democratic in nature, and should be ended.
- sooheon 4y ago
  > Even if accurate, where is the other 2/3 coming from? You'd think the primary issue would be more explicitly noted. It is explicitly accounted for, in TFA. ~30% (1.6%) is coming from cost cutting --so potentially sweat shops, but also productivity gains--and another ~37% (2%) is coming from an actual increase in sales, i.e. GDP growth.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
okay_dude13 4y ago
throwaway1777 4y ago
The problem is not really globalization, the problem is reliance on china, Russia, the saudis, etc for critical parts of the economy. That reliance was made possible by globalization, but the reason to reduce reliance on them is not because of increased efficiency but increased security and independence.

gazarullz 4y ago

What makes you think that it wont reverse? Look at what is happening to the chip wars between Us, EU and China, and the energy crisis in Europe. My thought is that we are witnessing the beginning of the end of globalization.

pclmulqdq 4y ago
That happens every time an empire declines. The Roman empire had a globalized economy, and that ended up collapsing into the medieval period of hyper-localization. The collapse of the Dutch and British empires had similar results. The American empire is collapsing now, and globalization is the first casualty. Fun fact: Victorian England even had several very successful uber-like businesses (phone ordering aggregators in this case).

Aunche 4y ago

It's funny that that anti-globalists like to frame it as them caring about the "poor sweatshop workers" without considering the sentiments of those workers. They think that taking away the little economic choice that these people have would be a great boon for them. Globalization isn't just good for developing nations, it benefits developed ones as well. American's dominance in technology, finance, and entertainment would not be possible to sustain without it.

leereeves 4y ago
> American's dominance in technology, finance, and entertainment would not be possible to sustain without it. Yes, without it, other nations could develop competitive industries at the top of the food chain and their citizens would have options other than working in sweatshops. Globalization comes packaged with many demands that primarily benefit Western corporations and make it very difficult to rise above subservience. (China rose largely because they ignored these demands, violated Western intellectual property laws, restricted the transfer of money in and out of the country, heavily regulated foreign companies, and had enough strength not to be sanctioned, invaded, or overthrown for doing so.)
- cuteboy19 4y ago
  Ok thats just wrong. Many asian countries developed their own competitive industries because the west outsourced some labor there. India/China both followed the same path Also, have you considered the opinion of the "sweatshop" workers because for them the options are "sweatshop" or not working at all
  - leereeves 4y ago
    Citing China as an example of the success of globalism and free trade is an interesting choice. They have a protectionist economy, and it was the most successful economy over the last forty years. China seems to have proven the benefits of protectionism. And I'm arguing that sweatshop workers would have options other than "'sweatshop' or not working at all" if free trade weren't killing any opportunity they might have to develop local industries. Their situation is not entirely unlike a small town in America when a WalMart opens, kills the local businesses, and the only remaining jobs are at WalMart.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    Subsistence farming is what lot of these workers come from. The factories or even sweatshops might not be perfect, but with increased population they are preferable to working fields with all the risks that involve.
  - 4y ago

photochemsyn 4y ago

Note the article early on states: > "This note's key finding is that the reduction in interest and tax expenses is responsible for a full one-third of all profit growth for S&P 500 nonfinancial firms over the prior two-decade period" Even if accurate, where is the other 2/3 coming from? You'd think the primary issue would be more explicitly noted. As far as China, their escape from famine-level poverty took place well before the neoliberal outsourcing program adopted China as one of its preferred sweatshop zones (along with Mexico, Indonesia, India, Philippines, Bangladesh, Honduras, etc.) - it really began with importation of ammonia fertilizer factories in the 1970s under the Nixon agreements, which really ended the famine era. The big change wrt the USA and China took place in 2000-2001, with WTO membership. While NAFTA had already been gutting the US manufacturing sector for the past half-decade, the explosion took off after that (just look at any major box store and count the items with 'made in China' labels). Fundamentally, the neoliberal project is all about 'liberating' international pools of capital from the restrictions (tariffs, sourcing requirements, capital transfer fees, etc.) imposed by nation-states, as a means of putting more and more wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands. It's profoundly anti-democratic in nature, and should be ended.

sooheon 4y ago
> Even if accurate, where is the other 2/3 coming from? You'd think the primary issue would be more explicitly noted. It is explicitly accounted for, in TFA. ~30% (1.6%) is coming from cost cutting --so potentially sweat shops, but also productivity gains--and another ~37% (2%) is coming from an actual increase in sales, i.e. GDP growth.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

okay_dude13 4y ago

throwaway1777 4y ago

The problem is not really globalization, the problem is reliance on china, Russia, the saudis, etc for critical parts of the economy. That reliance was made possible by globalization, but the reason to reduce reliance on them is not because of increased efficiency but increased security and independence.