4 ms·
It is easy to look at Globalization in retrospect and conclude that it was a failure but you will miss all the advances it brought with it. Globalization has it
by bit1993 1y ago
It is easy to look at Globalization in retrospect and conclude that it was a failure but you will miss all the advances it brought with it. Globalization has its place and time, it was the logical next step after the USA industrialization peaked the next step to squeeze out even more from the economy.
- camillomiller 1y agoWe could have had exactly the same and possibly more if it weren’t for people like Welch. They were a hindrance to how globalization could have brought a lot more of shared wealth and less inequality
- bit1993 1y ago> They were a hindrance to how globalization could have brought a lot more of shared wealth and less inequality That is not how capitalism works.
- camillomiller 1y agoYeah, which is my other point: Welch was just better than others at capitalism, bringing its fundamental and unethical tenets to the extreme.
- pyrale 1y agoSays who?
- bit1993 1y agoCapitalism is a zero sum game.
- totallykvothe 1y agoNo
- QuadmasterXLII 1y agoHow on earth do you justify this claim?
- xoralkindi 1y agoThe US Federal Reserve data indicates that the top 10% of households own about 67% of the nation's wealth, while the bottom 50% hold less than 4% Also let us not forget other tools that have significantly helped capitalist nations: Slavery, Colonialism, Imperialism, Sanctions, Wars, Coup d'etat's... these have all contributed to what capitalism is today. So yes Capitalism in the grand scheme of things is entirely zero sum.
- _benton 1y agoNothing of what you said has anything to do with the concept of "zero sum". It has to do with if the resources in a system are fixed or if they are changing.
- xoralkindi 1y ago"zero sum: relating to or denoting a situation in which whatever is gained by one side is lost by the other." The data from the Fed show great inequality which can be expected from a zero-sum game. Another example check how under develop DR Congo is in the electronic age, while hardware (and to an extend software) companies are some of the most valuable companies, they all source raw materials from Congo.
- _benton 1y agoInequality is possible in a non-zero-sum game. It's just as possible to have an inequal non-zero-sum game as it is to have an equal zero-sum game. Capitalism isn't zero sum because at its core principle are transactions, which are inherently non-zero-sum.
- xoralkindi 1y ago
- ben_w 1y agoFalsified by the global economic growth in the period between Adam Smith and Karl Marx. Once we reach the end of the road for further invention and improvements (even if that is in the form of our own capacity and theoretically there's more), that's when capitalism becomes zero sum. Until than point, capitalism is a way of distributing more resources to people who are better at finding those improvements.
- otikik 1y agoIt's doing the opposite of distributing. It's concentrating resources into a smaller and smaller selection of individuals.
- ben_w 1y ago"Distributing" doesn't require "evenly". Amazon has distribution centres, they don't send stuff to all customers equally regardless of what is ordered. The entire foundational assumption of (Smith's) capitalism is the idea that people who are better at making a profit are exactly who should be given more money to work with, and that this benefits all of society — and while I will agree that the phrase "trickle down economics" doesn't fit reality of the behaviour of billionaires (who act more like aristocrats), that's where that phrase comes from, and it seems to often work up to deca-millionaires at least. The flaw with this (even in the case of millionaires) is it presumes no parasites. As it happens, both Smith and Marx noticed this, but as history shows, the proponents extolling the virtues of each were not very effective at preventing economic parasites.
- otikik 1y agoI don't think I agree. If I read an article that titled "this NGO is distributing food and medical aid to the refugees of the conflict" and then on the body of the article I find out that a single guy got all the supplies and the rest got nothing, I would consider the title very misleading.
- ben_w 1y ago
- pjc50 1y agoI'm not really sure how globalization could have been stopped after the invention of the shipping container, which was ""the internet for physical objects"". Especially after the closed Soviet economies failed. I suppose some Americans would have preferred a situation where China stayed Communist or collapsed.
- kamaal 1y ago>>I suppose some Americans would have preferred a situation where China stayed Communist or collapsed. The definition of Communism per the west, is something that always fails by default. The way Chinese define communism is doing whatever it takes to win. When you remove all the abstract words behind this game, a simple philosophy is if you do the right things you win. You can call it capitalism, communism or whatever you want.
- ddq 1y agoMarket Daoism?