No one (including the post you're replying to) is suggesting that globalization can solve inequality. It solves a bunch of other things, presents some new challenges, and makes the consequences of inequality worse.

>i agree that globalization would reduce the risk of global conflict - there would only be one side. thus, if the wrong people were in power there would be no way to fight them. that's scary.

That's not scary, that's the US. The Federal government functions more successfully than state governments in every way. In the Fed we have Trump vs. in states we have literal coups and gerrymandering. The US is better as a federation than individual states in every way. A state is not more able to fight "the wrong people being in charge", but they are significantly more vulnerable to it.

This is single-cell bugs vs multicellular organisms all over again.

> i don't think inequality can be solved by globalization.

No, it's the other way'round.

On the way to globalization, we need to make sure inequality stays within reasonable levels, otherwise the whole thing will fail.

Globalization is the exploitation of the lower standard of living in other areas. The reason corporations ship jobs overseas is because it's cheap. This in no way controls inequality, and in fact makes it worse.

Globalization has caused the largest transfer of wealth from rich countries to poor countries in the history of mankind, reducing inequality between countries on an unprecedented scale.

This is true, but it has also strengthened inequality significantly within countries: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/pdf/c4.pdf

Yes, that is bad, but eliminating extreme poverty is really, really good.

If the lower and middle classes of a country don't benefit from globalism(like the US right now), political instability and widespread disdain for globalism will result. It may be a net positive overall, but it doesn't mean much if everyone around me is losing their jobs. If globalism is that important to lift other countries out of poverty, then we need to find a more sustainable way to carry it out.

Well, they do benefit from globalisation, they can all afford flatscreen TVs, and a mobile device with internet access, for example. Stuff is incredibly cheap in the US, and is getting cheaper all the time.

The US has a really bad track record when it comes to distributing the gains of globalisation in terms of disposable income, it is absolutely not the case that "a rising tide lifts all boats", because the gains have predominantly gone to the upper and upper-middle classes, screwing the middle and lower classes over.

Other western countries have managed this much better, and redistributed the gains more evenly. That the US sucks at redistribution, is not a case against globalisation, but that unfortunately doesn't stop the uninformed populist-in-chief and his angry supporters from blaming all their woes on globalisation.

It is true that some electronics are cheaper, but much of the lower class is becoming unable to purchase a house or afford an education. Plus there are other expenses that didn't exist in the past, such as internet and cell phone bills. Edit: The quality of life for the lower class has also gone down, since wages have gone down & both people of a family are basically required to work nowadays.

How have other western countries managed this better? Can any of the methods used by those countries you speak of be used in the US?

> How have other western countries managed this better? Can any of the methods used by those countries you speak of be used in the US?

Of course, but the American people are generally extremely skeptical of the idea that other countries might do things better, and any US politician that tried would immediately be branded a dirty, stinking, socialist. Because that's what you need, a little bit of socialism.

You need to tax the individuals and corporations that make the biggest gains from globalisation.

You need to redistribute that wealth to the individuals that are hardest hit by globalisation, those whose jobs are disappearing.

You need to invest in education, so the next generations are competitive in the global marketplace, and you need to invest in re-education, so that the indivuals whose jobs are gone can get a different job in a different industry.

(And to be fair, the US is doing these things, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_Regional_Developme.... It's just not enough.)

I'm not saying the Scandinavian countries are socialist utopias, there's definitely problems, but they don't suffer from this particular problem. When in the US, inflation-adjusted income has remained steady since the 70's for the lower half of the population, in Scandianvia, the inflation-adjusted income has risen for everyone. Yes, the gap between richest and poorest has increased as well, but as long as everyone is getting it a little bit better all the time, it's easier for society to bear.

The lower and middle classes benefit from globalization by nature of not being sent off to die at war as often.

> Globalization is the exploitation of the lower standard of living in other areas.

Yes, I am aware that some people define it that way.

Take something like Climate Change. Pretty good example if any that global cooperation is needed to solve. Also ultimately the biggest inequality issue looming as it will disproportionately hurt the world's poorest.

Incidental, this is the main reason I voted for Brexit.

I see things like the hunt for Assange, (or Snowden) and am of the opinion that the more collected various governments are, the easier it is for them to prey on the divided populace.