5 ms·
If globalization was a person it would be the ultimate Jekyll and Hyde personality There is what one might term the good, if not sublime, globalization. For as
by nologic01 3y ago
If globalization was a person it would be the ultimate Jekyll and Hyde personality
There is what one might term the good, if not sublime, globalization. For as long as there are vast disparities in, e.g., life expectancy and educational level across the planet, our tribe lives a life out-of-balance (in the Koyaanisqatsi sense), unfair, unstable, miserly, antediluvian. Good globalization means flow of information, capital, people, goods that is (or should be) the great equilibrator, restoring balance.
The other face of globalization is decidedly darker. It consists of what one might term conscious ESG arbitrage. Effectively pursuing short-term extractive profits by identifying global opportunities to hide environmental externalities such as pollution, exploit inferior labor conditions and benefit from poor governance systems (oligarchs and the like). Bad globalization means sharply raising inequalities within a region while modestly lowering inequalities between regions.
If localization was a person it would be the ultimate Jekyll and Hyde personality
There is what one might term the good, if not sublime, localization. For as long as one region lives at the expense of others, slurping (ultimately by force) resources and human talent from across the planet our tribe lives a life out-of-balance (in the Koyaanisqatsi sense). The good side of localization means that, by-and-large, communities in all regions become adapted to and live in equilibrium within their own ecosystems.
The other face of localization is decidedly darker. It consists of what one might term Ideology arbitrage. Effectively pursue narrow-minded, isolationist policies and otherization, based on politics, religion or other discriminating factors in order to prop and persist a sub-optimal power structure arrangement.
The bottom line on globalization/localization is that they are sufficiently ill-defined that every political agenda can find something useful. Yet as the above juxtaposition hopefully illustrates, it does not take that much to start being more honest, less obfuscating, about what we are really talking about.
- darth_avocado 3y agoWhat is interesting is that everyone who opposes globalization for what it does in terms of labor market conveniently forgets that localizing also comes with a lot of darker things. We want to manufacture iPhones on US soil entirely? Well, where are those factories going to be? What children will live in dangerous health conditions in perpetuity because of the pollution that will come with it? Where will all the waste go?
- gonzo41 3y agoThis is a really funny comment. It's like you're saying those things are fine if they happen to Chinese kids. How grim
- cies 3y agoI was shocked for the same reasons. Did the author of the comment not see it's so blatantly racist?
- darth_avocado 3y agoIt’s barely racist. It’s just the double Standards everyone has. Every single one of us can pretend that we care about children mining Cobalt in Africa, but really, no one is willing to give up their iPhones or demand accountability. However if a factory was to be set up in our own backyards, every single one of us would be up in arms. The comment wasn’t to say it is okay, it was to highlight that to enjoy a certain level of comfort in the modern world, we need to do some pretty bad things. And most people don’t even realize what they are until it hits their backyard. Also, let me frame it this way, given that you’re not okay with pollution sufferings of people in China, would you be okay if the same factory was set up next to your house, given that even the most factories operating under safe standards still emit enough pollution to have long term effects on humans? Virtue signaling on the internet is easy, real world is hard.
- cies 3y ago> we need to do some pretty bad things I disagree. We can do without, but some "have not yet". And big biz is really good in exploiting that. I simply refuse to go with the fatalistic "we need to". Hang on for a thought experiment... Say we only tax "bad behavior" defined as: polluting, resource usage (land, water, etc.), resource hoarding (excessive wealth), products/services that are deemed unhealthy/immoral. And we do not tax good behavior: income from labor, having a house, buying healthy food, etc. If we do this fair and square (for persons and businesses alike) the market will find solutions. Currently the market's optimized towards bad behavior, and we are starting to see the results of that.