> I agree with that critique, though it may be a problem with this specific version of Globalism, not globalism itself. Well, there's nothing about Globalism t

> I agree with that critique, though it may be a problem with this specific version of Globalism, not globalism itself. Well, there's nothing about Globalism that enforces this so it's really a complaint about most if-not all Globalism. > With only 5% of the population the US would not have nearly enough manufacturing capacity to meet modern needs. Expand your borders to include say Canada or all of South America. The UK moved up the value chain into industrial jobs while delegating out the cotton farming to their North American _Colony_ (as well as their South East Asian colony). > If it was handing away money, then why would someone invest in it? They invest because the investment generates returns, in this case massive returns that changed hundreds of millions of lives and provided wealth that was used to buy and invest in yet more things. Sending over capital goods in exchange for future considerations is not a Mercantilism argument. The reason why somebody would invest in it is because they're a Globalist. The reason why "we" switched from Mercantilism to Globalism is because it generates more growth but you can't use Globalism arguments in a Mercantilism framework unless you're making the argument to switch frameworks. (Also Mercantilism is also causing income equality by having an underclass in your colonies to support a wealthier main land; but the mainland isn't going to be complaining about being poor).