> But you're describing some kind of theoretical ideal world. We don't live in that world.

Everything is "theoretical" and "ideal" and "impossible" before it actually happens. Electronic computers were an impossibility to James Watt era engineers. Steam engines were an impossibility to the architects of the Parthenon. Raising large stone edifices was an impossibility to hunter-gatherers roaming the savanna. Yet all these things happened in due course of time.

> But looking at history and the current state of the world... what do you think is more likely?

I see a generally ascending arc, with local dips and bumps. The trends look good in the long run, although the short run is always difficult to predict.

Of course, that is not an absolute guarantee of success. Nothing is. The best case scenario is not going to happen without a lot of effort, some substantial amount of time, and likely some sacrifices along the way.

So you're telling me I should support TPP, globalization efforts, and the subsequent concentration of economic and political power because you have a good feeling that humanity is heading in the right direction and we can invent some effective control on inequality because nothing is impossible the same way we invented the electronic computer?

Oh c'mon, principle of charity, please. That is not at all what the parent said or even implied. It is fact that humanity is heading in the right direction over the long term (based on tracking standard of living and the standard deviation of such). It is also fact that there are bumps and regressions along the way. We shouldn't support the TPP; it sucks (the only good thing Trump has done so far is pull out of it). We shouldn't support the concentration of economic and political power.

We should support things that make sense and promote the reduction of income inequality. That need not be at odds with globalization, though many businesspeople tend to push it that way since it's cheaper and good for them.

>We should support things that make sense and promote the reduction of income inequality. That need not be at odds with globalization, though many businesspeople tend to push it that way since it's cheaper and good for them.

Doesn't need to be at odds with globalization, and yet all the evidence so far seems to point that way. Society is a nebulous construct of many actors. Some will try to build a more equitable future, others will not. The others are undoubtedly those who can figure out how to rise to the top. They are the ones controlling globalization efforts.

The neo-liberal dream is just that, a dream. When push comes to shove most people aren't actually for equality, they just say they are.

> principle of charity, please

Exactly, thank you. The exchange felt like the opposite of it.

It seems like the meaning of the word "globalization" has been hijacked. It really seems, in the minds of some people at least, to indicate a bundle of very negative outcomes - which in no way I would support.

Shifting the center of this discussion would take too long. I'm not here to write a dissertation about the evolution of human society. I think I've hinted at how things could possibly unfold, if we make a consistent effort to better the future of the Earth. Read what I've said and that should provide some indication - unless your mind is set on "winning" a contest of punditry, in which case I wish you good luck.

TLDR: I think the best of all possible futures could be achieved through some measure of unity on a global scale, at a higher order of magnitude compared to what we have now. Inequality is one of the many obstacles on the way there. Narrow-minded nationalism is another. It would require massive changes on multiple levels, and it will not happen in a day or two. Call the end result whatever you like. But anything that could bring that future closer is a good cause to support.