4 ms·
Globalization as we have experienced it in the recent decades is a giant, short-termist arbitrage of labor and environmental conditions across different countri
by nologic01 3y ago
Globalization as we have experienced it in the recent decades is a giant, short-termist arbitrage of labor and environmental conditions across different countries.
It benefited colluding elites that struck the political agreements to make it happen. It also helped expand a more consumerist society by making a wider range of products accessible to the masses.
But it was never a blueprint for sustainable, long term, globalization (which is in principle a good thing). The colluding elites turned on each other and became geopolitical adversaries (It turns out its not such a great idea to outsource both brain and muscle function to the tiger chasing you)
The financially overextended consumers realized that ever increasing consumption is neither economically viable nor does it ensure a balanced and fulfilled life. And underneath it all a struggling biosphere is sending the increasingly not-so-subtle message that we are nearing a precipice.
Its not clear what will be the successor "scheme". Malgovernance is the norm. Ideally you'd want to take the lessons of this failed large scale social engineering experiment on board. Ensure that economies are built stably, from the bottom up, with "middle class" being the bulk of the wealth distribution, a full range of capacities, adapted to the local environment etc.
Its not clear though that there is anybody that feels the need to learn.
- golergka 3y agoThe people it helped the most are not elites, but workers from third world countries.
- nologic01 3y agoThe economic benefit was given to them in an opportunistic and exploitative way: for as long as they are cheap and not too demanding, happy to live and work in degraded conditions etc. Probably less bad than being condemned in medieval living conditions but not an excuse for not thinking about genuinely better ways. The shape of humam economy (eg whether unequal, stratified, slave labor based or more or less egalitarian) is an entirely cultural choice.
- golergka 3y agoCopenhagen theory of moral entanglement strikes again. A company that never gives workers from third world any jobs will never be blamed for their conditions, but another company that offers them salaries twice as high as they had before will be crucified for not offering the same rates as in the first world. Honestly, your stance is not only irrational, but even immoral.
- nologic01 3y agoPressumably your superior moral compass is intensily relaxed about third world sweatshops, lethal mines and systemic pollution given that the "rate" is 2x their prior earning potential. Widespread abuse and exploitation of people by people would not possible if the beneficiaries were not extremely skillful to rationalize their self-serving ideologies.
- odux 3y agoI don’t agree. If a company creates jobs in a third world country which would have been otherwise created in their “own” [1] country if not for cost reasons is morally and ethically in a grey area. On the other hand, said workers in the third world country that has seen their conditions and prosperity get better will only want their conditions to get even better. This is what happened in the first world. A company preventing that is immoral. 1: own in the sense the place that contributed (schools, taxes, stable political system) to their growth to a point that they have wealth and expertise to invest in other countries.