Given the plethora of banal and ill-understood points, I’ll just go with one of the earlier options:
I’d suggest looking at death and famine tolls of the Communist and Cultural Revolutions in China. You’re effectively complaining that China is imperfect as it is today. Which, yes, that’s true, but you’re looking at a single snapshot in history without considering the direction that things are going.
The quality of life in China is, on the whole, improving. The current head of the country is working ahead on the country’s two largest issues, pollution and corruption. That’s why those two are in the news regularly.
Given another 20-60 years, life in China might be little different from the US. But, it’s a large undertaking to transform the country from a Communist death camp into a modern, democratic nation. And, of all the things that are feeding into propelling China towards the latter, globalization is one of the stronger.
So unless you know of some way, in the real world, to make sweeping changes to a country’s politics, culture, and economy in an instant, without any negative side effects, I think you’re just going to have to accept that some things take time and the path from point A to point B might not always be a vision of perfection.
Uh, okay. I think you need to establish the difference between correlation and causation.
Other things that have grown since “Globalization” has; the save percentages of NHL goalies, the quality of cable TV shows, Justin Bieber’s notoriety, and the strikeout-to-walk ratio of Major League Baseball pitchers. Those things are not because of globalization, though.
I implore you to consider that there is in fact a world outside of the borders of the United States, a world where there are many industrialized nations that have increased their free trade with the rest of the world and where tuition costs have NOT skyrocketed. If globalization increased tuition costs, that shouldn’t be the case.
If tuition costs are skyrocketing and job opportunities decreasing (the first of which may be true; the second I am unconvinced, since unemployment is not rising and there are a lot of job skills in very high demand) that doesn’t draw a line between those problems and globalization. The higher education system in the USA is unmistakably weird and has a lot of perverse incentives that cause people to spend a lot of money on degrees and then graduate surprised that their skills are not in demand. That is, however, an entirely USA-grown problem.
You seem, Justin, to just be generally dissatisfied with the world’s situation in a very loosely defined way. Regrettably that is not how problems are solved and it isn’t even how they’re usefully discussed.
[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
The quality of life in China is, on the whole, improving. The current head of the country is working ahead on the country’s two largest issues, pollution and corruption. That’s why those two are in the news regularly.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with the overall theme of your post…China and the Chinese people ARE much better off today than they were 20 or 30 (or 50) years ago. However, your statements here are…credulous. Sure, Xi SAY he’s taking on pollution and corruption, but the reality is that both claims are either exaggerations or misdirection. The war on corruption, for instance has more to do with Xi’s and his FACTION taking out rival political factions and using ‘corruption’ charges to take them down. The fact that in most cases they are corrupt is beside the point…the point being to take them down and get rid of them. And make an example of them to other factions and to the Chinese people. Several of Xi’s faction (including IIRC is own brother in law) were exposed in the Panama Papers (which are, of course, censored in China) as well as several sitting Politburo members…don’t hold your breath for ‘corruption’ charges to be thrown at any of them unless they happen to be in rival factions.
Pollution is kind of the same thing. It’s epic in China. The only time something substantial is done it’s done for political reasons (like during the Olympics when factories were shut down and driving curtailed a few weeks before…so the air quality would improve for the tourists), and it’s generally short term. China is exploring clean alternatives but only because they need every source of power they can get…they are still building dirty coal plants and still use and will continue to use more coal than all other countries combined.
What does this have to do with the rest of the OP?
Whence comes this bizarre, but lately ubiquitous, obsession with the gold standard? :eek: Sorry, OP, but when I saw “confiscation of gold and, so, wealth” the rest of your post just vanished down la oubliette.
My knowledge of the situation comes, basically entirely, from The Economist. I may have read wrong, but I’d say that it’s largely your word against theirs.
That said, I agree that it may seem like I am presenting Xi in a more positive sense than is true. To say that he’s “working on” certain things or that China is on the path to “democracy” are both taking the long view. Xi is limited by his knowledge of the world, the culture he was brought up in, the Communist party, etc. He certainly has no intention of establishing democracy and his concept of what “corrupt” or “polluted” are, are vastly different than ours. But that falls under the heading of, “there’s no instantaneous, perfect path from here to there.” China can only do as well as China can do with the people and history it has.
Minus Globalization, there would be no carrot, prodding them away from the current state.
I’ve been a fan of Keynes since I was old enough to understand it, and more so after I did my degree in economics. I’ve read a lot about Keynesian and Austrian economics after I graduated in 2004, speaking with economists, fund managers, small investors, SME owners, plus I worked in a bank speaking with people about their finances for 9 years.
As the OP I feel I should explain I’m only wanting to open a dialogue of the virtues of globalisation, as much as it has brought benefits I’m unsure as to whether the continuation of it will be beneficial. To clarify on the questions raised above; the gold standard is history, with many reasons why; the development in Asia and previously Soviet Europe have been wonderful; I’ve lived and worked in six countries so am not fixated on NHL goalies; I’ve never even heard of a ‘communist opera’ (my mother’s grandfather - a teacher in Poland - was hung from a lamppost by the Russians, for speaking his mind); and I’m only questioning an accepted ‘fact’ that is arguable.
It has probably come across as bewildering and strange - apologies for that. The recent political landscape isn’t helping in my Great Debate as it inflames and marginalises people’s points of view. My own point of view has changed a lot recently and will be subject to change as it’s still quite fluid so, on reflection, I will take a ‘back seat’ and a few years’ hence come forth with something more concrete.
There was a time where the intelligentsia thought that globalized industry would prevent major war because of the economic cost.
This was shortly proceeded by the two bloodiest wars in history.
However, part of the lesson from history is that insular, nationalistic economies are more damaging to consumers and that, on the whole, integrated economies make wars much less palatable.
In general, globalization is better economically and culturally as it allows for a free flow of goods and ideas. Wars tend to wane in favor as people become better fed, intellectually and literally.
:dubious:
The 1914 world was at least as globalised as ours was if not more (they had lesser limitations in some areas, no passports for instance).My favoiruite anecdote; German Battleships used British Parsons turbines for fuvks sake.
The second part, that wars tend to fade as people become richer is also not bourne out by experience, indeed, nations wich are emerging from an economic boom which created a new middle class are much more warlike then poorer ones; look at Germnay, Italy and Japan in the last century. Or the U.K in the 18th century.
Middle Classes are very reliably bloodthirsty and nationalistic.
My reading of the OP suggests that it is concerned that The American middle class is loosing benefits and / or its members are moving down to the lower classes. As partial evidence, look at how the debt load that college students are put under has increased a lot recently.
The suggested culprits are globalization and automation. There could be other issues that are playing into this.
I would suggest that the US tax structure, as well as the tax structure of the developed world, is tilted very much in favor of the already wealthy. The US in particular has cut taxes on rich, while cutting education, infrastructure, and other social benefits that help the gifted among the poor and middle class to maximize their potential.
The problem with globalization is not that people who used to be dirt farmers are now able to buy stuff, but that the wealthy elite are able to play one country against another to get the best tax advantages and make the workers cost the least.
If done right, automation could make most of us very much more “free” than we are, and globalization could bring better health and more available goods to the rest of the world.
[QUOTE=AK84]
The 1914 world was at least as globalised as ours was if not more (they had lesser limitations in some areas, no passports for instance).My favoiruite anecdote; German Battleships used British Parsons turbines for fuvks sake.
[/QUOTE]
You think the world was as ‘globalised’ as ours is today (:eek:…seriously??) because the Germans used British turbines?? Just using this ridiculous example I could find a dozen US weapons systems that use myriad nations products to make them work. The Abrams alone has parts and components from a dozen different countries.
Of course, the REAL examples are just the products used every day in every industrialized nation (and most of the non-industrialized ones) that come not just from the few top tier nations as it was in 1914 but from dozens of nations across the globe. There is no comparison between the way the world is today and how it was in 1914…it’s such a mind blowingly silly assertion that I nearly fell over when I read your post.
Again, this is such a ridiculous comparison it’s breath taking. In all the wars fought since WWII the body count alone has declined by orders of magnitude…and not just for the major nations. Even taking into account all the ridiculous secondary and tertiary impacts that we were taken through with tortured logic for Iraq and Afghanistan, and even taking into account brutal wars such as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and US war in Vietnam, all the wars since WWII don’t have nearly as many dead as EITHER of the great wars…or, if we actually compare apples to apples most of the wars fought in the late 19th century before the great wars.
In my opinion, the reason why globalization is failing to “produce the goods” is not globalization itself but neocolonialism. promoted by (Gaetano Mosca’s) elites in the developed world in their competition for power.
The OP’s question is a little nonsensical and takes a bit of a myopic view of globalization. Globalization HAS produced the goods in the sense of millions of people all over the world being lifted out of poverty. The world is more connected, more productive, more free and wealthier than ever before.
Basically the gist is that the efficiency of cities in a highly connected global market is leading to the consolidation of urban areas into highly connected “megacities” or “megalopolises” of tens of millions of people (think the urban region consisting of Washington DC, Philadelphia, New York and Boston) linked by networks of rail, road, air and telecommunications.
That is not to say there aren’t challenges. This represents a massive global change. It diminishes the relevancy of national boundaries. People who believe in “American exceptionalism” probably find this very disturbing as it makes America less “exceptional”.
