5 ms·

Nobody is talking about it because it is still politically incorrect in our overall culture [1] to admit that globalization is collapsing. Our elites have banke

by jerf 4y ago

Nobody is talking about it because it is still politically incorrect in our overall culture [1] to admit that globalization is collapsing. Our elites have banked too much of their reputation on this to change course quickly in public. To say globalization is dead is to say our elites were grotesquely, systematically, and with great consequences to all, wrong. I find it very productive to look at the positions of various large entities and measure them against "what's the fastest these entities can change their official position without ever having to actually admit they were wrong". When you find a government agency or large company moving at that speed on some topic, it is advantageous for you as an individual to look at where they are going, and take appropriate actions without waiting for the official authority to finally get to the more justifiable position. It can be decades for one of these entities to get to a new position at this speed. But there's plenty of actions being taken. This is merely a high profile one. Lots of little adjustments by lots of companies that add up to a lot. All the economies of the world are adjusting to the new realities. [1]: By which I mean, the mainstream media, TV, large magazines, etc. I'm not too worried that I'm going to be hammered on the subculture of HN for this statement. Someone may disagree, but I don't expect anyone to try to shame me over this or something. But don't hold your breath for CNN or someone like that to air a one-hour special on Why Globalization Was A Big Mistake And Everyone Advocating For It Was Obviously Stupid.

aeternum 4y ago
Globalization also isn't really collapsing but it definitely is changing. Is Apple now making their iPhones in the US? Nope, but they are moving production to other countries so it doesn't only take place in China. This will result in higher prices short-term, but will likely result in more globalization and supply-chain resilience in the longer term.
- jerf 4y ago
  Yeah, I think of it more as a pendulum swing than an absolute. As a deliberate extreme example, shipping your entire industrial base to another country is obviously stupid. (The US did not literally do that. By most measures our industrial output has been flat, rather than necessarily "declining", over the previous couple of decades. It's just our needs grew as our output didn't.) But on the flip side, demanding that everything be sourced from within your "own" economy (however you'd even define such a thing) is going to be stupid on roughly the same time frame too. Any self-contained economy is going to have a hard time competing with one using a larger base. We went too far in one direction. It doesn't take a very deep knowledge of history to expect we will overcompensate too far in the other direction. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
  - kneebonian 4y ago
    Well that is the big advantage the US has. Is that we have the population for it, in comparison the US population is around 300 million whereas the entire EU is only 350 million. So the US has enough of a market, and it also has the resources to be able to manufacture most things locally, honestly a long with Canada and Mexico NA could be largely self contained without too many issues inside of NA. It's the rest of the world that has benefited from globalization, from the raising the standard of living in Asia to getting cheap goods to Euorpe, but things can and will change.
    - d3ckard 4y ago
      It’s 332M USA vs 447M EU. And be assured, nobody benefits from isolation. Chances you outcompete everybody at everything are slim. I would also argue that SV would never grow so much without relatively free trade.
      - aeternum 4y ago
        Even in the unlikely case that you do outcompete everybody, free trade is still a significant benefit. Many don't understand the economic principle of comparative advantage, it is counterintuitive.
aschearer 4y ago
Just did a search for "cnn globalization mistake" and found this article[1] from May of last year. Seems pro-globlization but reasonably even handed, presenting points for and against. The elite of elites, Powell, says "There is a real possibility that globalization will go into reverse." I bring this to your attention in the hope that it may help you expand your bubble. If you're serious about the segment where people publicly admit their mistakes and that they were "obviously stupid" then best of luck. Personally, I think there are many voices critical of globalization from across the political spectrum. The problem, as I see it, is opponents of globalization have failed to articulate a clear, compelling alternative that will "deliver the goods." [1]: https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/24/politics/globalization-trade-tariffs-what-matters/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/24/politics/globalization-trade-...
- jerf 4y ago
  This is what I mean by "moving as fast as they can without having to admit they were wrong". That speed is not zero. It is still not a popular opinion. The occasional trial balloon is part of the process. "If you're serious about the segment where people publicly admit their mistakes and that they were "obviously stupid" then best of luck." Of course that's obviously satirical. CNN does not run actual news segments with that name or anything like it. I picked it that way on purpose, for that effect.
  - aschearer 4y ago
    You said, "Nobody is talking about it because it is still politically incorrect in our overall culture" and then cited CNN as an example. I provided an example where CNN is talking about the issue seriously. What I'm saying is, you're wrong about it being "politically incorrect" and that "no elites will talk about it". In fact, Powell is talking about it and being reported by CNN! Furthermore, Trump and Bernie both ran strong campaigns on the question of globalization. As president, Trump took steps against globalization. A far cry from "politically incorrect" or something the public isn't debating. Likewise, today steps are being taken by Biden to onshore more industries, again clearly not "politically incorrect." As far as "it's still not a popular opinion" I guess I don't know what that means. Taking my points above, it seems like we're actively debating the subject as a society with proponents on both sides. As I argued before, I think the "anti-globalization" crowd has yet to make their case convincingly. If it's just "a little less globalization, please" -- well then how is "globalization dead?"
robertoandred 4y ago
The use of the term "elites" does not give me confidence in the person using it.
- jerf 4y ago
  You believe there is no power gradient in the world? You think you are as capable of setting international policy as anyone else? An intriguing view. How you square it with the real world I do not know.
  - notahacker 4y ago
    There's a big difference between between acknowledging the existence of power gradients in the world and expressing the belief that the many opinions expressed in mainstream media consist of a single 'elite' view on globalization. How you square that with a real world in which some of the most influential people and publications in international policy in recent years in many countries have focused on attacking trade deals, demanding withdrawal from supranational organizations and implying that entire systems are rigged in favour of specific rival countries, I do not know.
- adamrezich 4y ago
  would you prefer "oligarchs"? (I would.)
  - robertoandred 4y ago
    Maybe we should skip the foreplay and go straight to “lizard people”.
    - Xorakios 4y ago
      You are incorrect. It is "crab people, crab people." Just ask South Park
danans 4y ago
> Nobody is talking about it because it is still politically incorrect in our overall culture [1] to admit that globalization is collapsing. Arguably it is politically in vogue in the US to be against absolute globalization. For example, the EV tax credits in the IRA are exclusively for US assembled vehicles. This caused a great deal of upset among foreign carmakers who don't have significant assembly operations in the US. The IRA went even further in requiring the key component of the EV, the battery, to have it's materials sourced in US free trade partners. Vehicle manufacturing is among the most politically visible and sensitive of industries. The consensus across the right, left, and center is towards rebuilding domestic industrial capacity in strategic industries.
- jerf 4y ago
  "The consensus across the right, left, and center is towards rebuilding domestic industrial capacity in strategic industries." The quiet consensus of those taking action, yes, absolutely. That's part of my point. The adjustments are being made all over the place. Those who have banked a lot on talking up globalization for the past 20-30 years will get there too. It will just be a slow process of very gradually tweaking their position a little bit every year at the maximum speed they can get away with while making it look like it's just little tweaks and they were never at any point actually wrong. There was also never 100% globalization; tariffs never went to zero, etc. But a lot of that would still fall under the class of quiet actions under the hood, while the loud rhetoric was all about free trade. I've actually interacted with plenty of people on HN over the years who didn't realize that tariffs were in fact a thing, always had been, and were engaged in by all countries in the world to at least some extent, depending on their local needs. The rhetoric was "free trade! free trade! free trade!", but the reality has always been more complex.
  - libraryatnight 4y ago
    You seem stuck on hostile score keeping. This is not a productive way of being. Also, you met some ignorant people on the internet and extrapolated that into something you thought was meaningful?
darth_avocado 4y ago
Because globalization is not dead, nor will it ever be. The only thing changing is countries trying to bring production of strategic items or high value products to keep all the profits. They may bring chip manufacturing back to USA, but all the flags, hats and freedom merch for Fourth of July will still be produced in China and that is never changing no matter how hard you try. People don’t like paying more money and that is not going away.
- floxy 4y ago
  Unless you live in Minnesota: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/2022/cite/325E.65 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/2022/cite/325E.65
sam0x17 4y ago
> To say globalization is dead is to say our elites were grotesquely, systematically, and with great consequences to all, wrong. dead != wrong I would also argue that it isn't dead but it is in a decline because of some disturbing moves toward nationalism and fascism all over the world over the last five years
golemotron 4y ago
> Nobody is talking about it because it is still politically incorrect in our overall culture [1] to admit that globalization is collapsing. True. It's been collapsing since at least 2015. The political upheavals in the US and the UK were backlashes against globalization. Since then, both countries have moved way from the late 20th century global vision that developed in the post WW2 era. For a while, in the US, there was the narrative that this was purely about Trump, but Biden is walking in the same direction re trade. It's a big change and it seems like it will endure across many administrations.
Cupertino95014 4y ago
Great analysis. Some Washington cynic once said, "Never believe anything until it's been officially denied." Also apropos: "Watch what they do, not what they say."
__derek__ 4y ago
It's hard to call something politically incorrect when the last American presidential election was a contest between explicitly protectionist, anti-globalization candidates. Morris Chang wasn't predicting the future so much as recognizing a fait accompli.
Aunche 4y ago
> But don't hold your breath for CNN or someone like that to air a one-hour special on Why Globalization Was A Big Mistake And Everyone Advocating For It Was Obviously Stupid. That's because it is terrible take. For one, globalization completely dissolved the threat of nuclear war. Also, globalization is the only reason why the economy hasn't stagnated. Our biggest economic successes operate in globalist spaces (tech and finance), but the biggest failures operate in heavily protectionist spaces (healthcare, construction, and the auto industry prior to rise of foreign subsidiaries).
- jimbob45 4y ago
  For one, globalization completely dissolved the threat of nuclear war That's simply untrue. Europe outsourced its natural gas needs to Russia in an attempt to strengthen ties (ostensibly to avoid nuclear war, among other things). Despite that, no one would be surprised if 2023 had at least one nuclear warhead detonated at some point.
  - svnt 4y ago
    > no one would be surprised if 2023 had at least one nuclear warhead detonated at some point. I would. I would be incredibly surprised.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    Didn't you hear the news: correlation is causation after all!
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    >Europe outsourced Europe also outsourced the security of the entire continent to the United States.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  Globalization may be the reason that the economy hasn't stagnated, but it's also the reason the economy hollowed out, with the working-class jobs disappearing, with pretty heavy societal damage. Were we better off with the economy growing but the blue-collar jobs disappearing? That's at least debatable.
jasmer 4y ago
I can see why you might think that but I disagree that it's not 'PC'. I don't even think it's hugely controversial really. There's been chatter for some time and it's not even a 'sided' political issue really there seem to be a variety of opinions.
brookst 4y ago
> To say globalization is dead is to say our elites were grotesquely, systematically, and with great consequences to all, wrong. This is not a good take at all. It shows a very static view of the world, as if globalization (or anything) is either eternally right or eternally wrong. Horses are dead as a means of local transportation. Does that mean our elites were grotesquely wrong about the value of horses... in the 1800's? The gold standard is dead... does that mean our elites were grotesquely wrong through most of history?

by jerf 4y ago

aeternum 4y ago

Globalization also isn't really collapsing but it definitely is changing. Is Apple now making their iPhones in the US? Nope, but they are moving production to other countries so it doesn't only take place in China. This will result in higher prices short-term, but will likely result in more globalization and supply-chain resilience in the longer term.

jerf 4y ago
Yeah, I think of it more as a pendulum swing than an absolute. As a deliberate extreme example, shipping your entire industrial base to another country is obviously stupid. (The US did not literally do that. By most measures our industrial output has been flat, rather than necessarily "declining", over the previous couple of decades. It's just our needs grew as our output didn't.) But on the flip side, demanding that everything be sourced from within your "own" economy (however you'd even define such a thing) is going to be stupid on roughly the same time frame too. Any self-contained economy is going to have a hard time competing with one using a larger base. We went too far in one direction. It doesn't take a very deep knowledge of history to expect we will overcompensate too far in the other direction. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
- kneebonian 4y ago
  Well that is the big advantage the US has. Is that we have the population for it, in comparison the US population is around 300 million whereas the entire EU is only 350 million. So the US has enough of a market, and it also has the resources to be able to manufacture most things locally, honestly a long with Canada and Mexico NA could be largely self contained without too many issues inside of NA. It's the rest of the world that has benefited from globalization, from the raising the standard of living in Asia to getting cheap goods to Euorpe, but things can and will change.
  - d3ckard 4y ago
    It’s 332M USA vs 447M EU. And be assured, nobody benefits from isolation. Chances you outcompete everybody at everything are slim. I would also argue that SV would never grow so much without relatively free trade.
    - aeternum 4y ago
      Even in the unlikely case that you do outcompete everybody, free trade is still a significant benefit. Many don't understand the economic principle of comparative advantage, it is counterintuitive.

aschearer 4y ago

Just did a search for "cnn globalization mistake" and found this article[1] from May of last year. Seems pro-globlization but reasonably even handed, presenting points for and against. The elite of elites, Powell, says "There is a real possibility that globalization will go into reverse." I bring this to your attention in the hope that it may help you expand your bubble. If you're serious about the segment where people publicly admit their mistakes and that they were "obviously stupid" then best of luck. Personally, I think there are many voices critical of globalization from across the political spectrum. The problem, as I see it, is opponents of globalization have failed to articulate a clear, compelling alternative that will "deliver the goods." [1]: https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/24/politics/globalization-trade-tariffs-what-matters/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/24/politics/globalization-trade-...

jerf 4y ago
This is what I mean by "moving as fast as they can without having to admit they were wrong". That speed is not zero. It is still not a popular opinion. The occasional trial balloon is part of the process. "If you're serious about the segment where people publicly admit their mistakes and that they were "obviously stupid" then best of luck." Of course that's obviously satirical. CNN does not run actual news segments with that name or anything like it. I picked it that way on purpose, for that effect.
- aschearer 4y ago
  You said, "Nobody is talking about it because it is still politically incorrect in our overall culture" and then cited CNN as an example. I provided an example where CNN is talking about the issue seriously. What I'm saying is, you're wrong about it being "politically incorrect" and that "no elites will talk about it". In fact, Powell is talking about it and being reported by CNN! Furthermore, Trump and Bernie both ran strong campaigns on the question of globalization. As president, Trump took steps against globalization. A far cry from "politically incorrect" or something the public isn't debating. Likewise, today steps are being taken by Biden to onshore more industries, again clearly not "politically incorrect." As far as "it's still not a popular opinion" I guess I don't know what that means. Taking my points above, it seems like we're actively debating the subject as a society with proponents on both sides. As I argued before, I think the "anti-globalization" crowd has yet to make their case convincingly. If it's just "a little less globalization, please" -- well then how is "globalization dead?"

robertoandred 4y ago

The use of the term "elites" does not give me confidence in the person using it.

jerf 4y ago
You believe there is no power gradient in the world? You think you are as capable of setting international policy as anyone else? An intriguing view. How you square it with the real world I do not know.
- notahacker 4y ago
  There's a big difference between between acknowledging the existence of power gradients in the world and expressing the belief that the many opinions expressed in mainstream media consist of a single 'elite' view on globalization. How you square that with a real world in which some of the most influential people and publications in international policy in recent years in many countries have focused on attacking trade deals, demanding withdrawal from supranational organizations and implying that entire systems are rigged in favour of specific rival countries, I do not know.
adamrezich 4y ago
would you prefer "oligarchs"? (I would.)
- robertoandred 4y ago
  Maybe we should skip the foreplay and go straight to “lizard people”.
  - Xorakios 4y ago
    You are incorrect. It is "crab people, crab people." Just ask South Park

danans 4y ago

> Nobody is talking about it because it is still politically incorrect in our overall culture [1] to admit that globalization is collapsing. Arguably it is politically in vogue in the US to be against absolute globalization. For example, the EV tax credits in the IRA are exclusively for US assembled vehicles. This caused a great deal of upset among foreign carmakers who don't have significant assembly operations in the US. The IRA went even further in requiring the key component of the EV, the battery, to have it's materials sourced in US free trade partners. Vehicle manufacturing is among the most politically visible and sensitive of industries. The consensus across the right, left, and center is towards rebuilding domestic industrial capacity in strategic industries.

jerf 4y ago
"The consensus across the right, left, and center is towards rebuilding domestic industrial capacity in strategic industries." The quiet consensus of those taking action, yes, absolutely. That's part of my point. The adjustments are being made all over the place. Those who have banked a lot on talking up globalization for the past 20-30 years will get there too. It will just be a slow process of very gradually tweaking their position a little bit every year at the maximum speed they can get away with while making it look like it's just little tweaks and they were never at any point actually wrong. There was also never 100% globalization; tariffs never went to zero, etc. But a lot of that would still fall under the class of quiet actions under the hood, while the loud rhetoric was all about free trade. I've actually interacted with plenty of people on HN over the years who didn't realize that tariffs were in fact a thing, always had been, and were engaged in by all countries in the world to at least some extent, depending on their local needs. The rhetoric was "free trade! free trade! free trade!", but the reality has always been more complex.
- libraryatnight 4y ago
  You seem stuck on hostile score keeping. This is not a productive way of being. Also, you met some ignorant people on the internet and extrapolated that into something you thought was meaningful?

darth_avocado 4y ago

Because globalization is not dead, nor will it ever be. The only thing changing is countries trying to bring production of strategic items or high value products to keep all the profits. They may bring chip manufacturing back to USA, but all the flags, hats and freedom merch for Fourth of July will still be produced in China and that is never changing no matter how hard you try. People don’t like paying more money and that is not going away.

floxy 4y ago
Unless you live in Minnesota: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/2022/cite/325E.65 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/2022/cite/325E.65

sam0x17 4y ago

> To say globalization is dead is to say our elites were grotesquely, systematically, and with great consequences to all, wrong. dead != wrong I would also argue that it isn't dead but it is in a decline because of some disturbing moves toward nationalism and fascism all over the world over the last five years

golemotron 4y ago

> Nobody is talking about it because it is still politically incorrect in our overall culture [1] to admit that globalization is collapsing. True. It's been collapsing since at least 2015. The political upheavals in the US and the UK were backlashes against globalization. Since then, both countries have moved way from the late 20th century global vision that developed in the post WW2 era. For a while, in the US, there was the narrative that this was purely about Trump, but Biden is walking in the same direction re trade. It's a big change and it seems like it will endure across many administrations.

Cupertino95014 4y ago

Great analysis. Some Washington cynic once said, "Never believe anything until it's been officially denied." Also apropos: "Watch what they do, not what they say."

__derek__ 4y ago

It's hard to call something politically incorrect when the last American presidential election was a contest between explicitly protectionist, anti-globalization candidates. Morris Chang wasn't predicting the future so much as recognizing a fait accompli.

Aunche 4y ago

> But don't hold your breath for CNN or someone like that to air a one-hour special on Why Globalization Was A Big Mistake And Everyone Advocating For It Was Obviously Stupid. That's because it is terrible take. For one, globalization completely dissolved the threat of nuclear war. Also, globalization is the only reason why the economy hasn't stagnated. Our biggest economic successes operate in globalist spaces (tech and finance), but the biggest failures operate in heavily protectionist spaces (healthcare, construction, and the auto industry prior to rise of foreign subsidiaries).

jimbob45 4y ago
For one, globalization completely dissolved the threat of nuclear war That's simply untrue. Europe outsourced its natural gas needs to Russia in an attempt to strengthen ties (ostensibly to avoid nuclear war, among other things). Despite that, no one would be surprised if 2023 had at least one nuclear warhead detonated at some point.
- svnt 4y ago
  > no one would be surprised if 2023 had at least one nuclear warhead detonated at some point. I would. I would be incredibly surprised.
- mistermann 4y ago
  Didn't you hear the news: correlation is causation after all!
- remarkEon 4y ago
  >Europe outsourced Europe also outsourced the security of the entire continent to the United States.
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
Globalization may be the reason that the economy hasn't stagnated, but it's also the reason the economy hollowed out, with the working-class jobs disappearing, with pretty heavy societal damage. Were we better off with the economy growing but the blue-collar jobs disappearing? That's at least debatable.

jasmer 4y ago

I can see why you might think that but I disagree that it's not 'PC'. I don't even think it's hugely controversial really. There's been chatter for some time and it's not even a 'sided' political issue really there seem to be a variety of opinions.

brookst 4y ago

> To say globalization is dead is to say our elites were grotesquely, systematically, and with great consequences to all, wrong. This is not a good take at all. It shows a very static view of the world, as if globalization (or anything) is either eternally right or eternally wrong. Horses are dead as a means of local transportation. Does that mean our elites were grotesquely wrong about the value of horses... in the 1800's? The gold standard is dead... does that mean our elites were grotesquely wrong through most of history?