Globalism isn't an "attempt" to do anything. It's just markets naturally tending towards efficiency.

> but if you're part of rural America you're getting hit very hard by globalism.

i.e. if you're part of rural America, you're being out-competed by superior market participants located in poorer countries.

It's not that unfair. It would be much more unfair to apply protectionist policies to subsidise the rural Americans at the expense of the truly-impoverished people in poorer countries.

completely disagree. Why is china expanding faster than most "democratic" countries. India is focused on technology which should be easier to outsource yet, Knowledge workers are doing fine in the US. It's because china is coordinates its activity like a giant company, in my opinion, to exploit markets. investing heavily in infrastructure, stealing trade secrets, destroying the environment, exploiting children and criminals, manipulating currency for decades. I could go on but you get the point

> It's because china is coordinates its activity like a giant company, in my opinion, to exploit markets.

Same thing Japan did after WWII. Works great if you can pull it off.

Japan didn't just "do it." The US allowed it and encouraged it. The US wanted a strong, capitalist ally in the region to counter Communism and Japan fit the bill. The US willfully ignored Japan's protectionism while allowing them high levels of access to our markets.

For example, the end of Kodak began when Fuji film infringed on their patents and the US government did nothing, still allowing Fuji to sell their film in the US.

You can look at that in two ways. The government broke up a near monopoly on print film that Kodak had, created competition and lowered prices for consumers. But ultimately it started an employer of 200K people on the path toward extinction. Yes it would have been eclipsed by digital anyway, but wouldn't it have been nice if those 200K people had their jobs a little longer?

I am personally torn on issues like this. I see the benefit of competition and globalization, but also the cost to local economies and industries.

The idea that globalism is an attempt to 'help' poor countries needs evidence to support it - I think there are plenty of ways in which globalism has benefitted wealthy countries at the expense of poor ones. In fact, the idea that globalism is 'an attempt' to do something, i.e. a conscious agenda to change the world, rather than just something which just emerged out of commercial activity, also seems a bit of a leap.

I think that we can once again be reminded that there is only one thing that is worse for poor nations than being exploited by global capitalism.

It's that poor nations are not exploited by global capitalism.

Then you can look up TED talks by Hans Rosling, and the follow-up reports for UN millennium development goals.

right - there have been massive improvements in poverty in developing countries as a result of globalization. But that doesn't mean that Rosling-style improvements in life outcomes for people in the poorest nations were a goal of globalization; just a side effect. And benefits have accrued to wealthy nations too - cheap gas, cheap electronic devices, expanding investment markets. If policy supporting globalization had a goal it was probably more driven by those outcomes.

The unpleasant, unintended side effects of many "good" policies often surprise activists: protectionism and orthodox equality leads to decreased trade and removes incentives to increase productivity. This is a surprise to many people who then try to deny the existence of these side effects because they think they are only advocating "good" policies so the bad results are someone else's fault.

The pleasant, unintended side effects of globalist capitalism and economic liberalism are in fact not that much a surprise. Just look at the track record. Is it bad if good outcomes follow as unintended consequences?

Arbor ex fructu cognoscitur.

Can you give a few examples of poor nations that are not being exploited by global capitalism?

Zimbabwe, North Korea. And of course many poor African nations where global capitalism doesn't operate that much and which are therefore largely in a subsistence economy.

Venezuela wasn't a poor nation to start with, but is becoming one in its urge to fight global capitalism.

North Korea and Cuba have been pretty well isolated from capitalism.

You could also look at countries in Africa that don't have extensive resource extraction (compared to those that do).

As an asside North Korea does ship workers abroad to work as slave laborers.

Partially that scheme seems to be an attempt to engage DPRK in some kind of dialog to prevent an unstable dictatorship with nuclear weapons and a lot of artillery that can reach Seoul from causing bad damage.

But given that utilising or even tolerating slave labourers on the ground in democratic nations is such a shameful thing, it might be better to actually let DPRK be completely isolated from global economy and not allow any of these arrangements. Even if that results in more misery for the people in DPRK.

iirc a bulk of these workers find themselves in Russia or China so hardly on democratic lands.

If you know of other instances of this that'd be a fascinating topic to read up on.

Zimbabwe, Venezuela, North Korea.

India and China beg to differ

The claim that globalization is an attempt to help poorer countries is controversial and would require elaboration.

The stereotypical example of a global economic pattern is a t shirt factory providing goods for a western brand that operates in a third world country because the economic equilibrium is such that raw material acquisition, labor and transport to market costs in total are lower than if the factory was situated for example next to the brand owners head office. I don't see where a will to help someone steps in there.

Globalism doesn't "attempt" anything, its not designed and it doesn't have agency.

I don't 100% agree with that. doesn't have agency true. not designed not so sure. There are plenty of treaties and other contracts between countries that effect how money etc. flows to countries. world bank and others.

Globalization is happening with or without those policies, though. Even if you don't like it, it's an unhappy reality.

You are correct, globalism is in fact designed and it is not inevitable. While as a broad concept it may lack agency, it certainly is driven by financial interests, and I am happy to assign the "agency" to them.

Whilst your point is true, you're wrong in thinking it is a zero sum game. It certainly isn't. In stark contrast to the USA, it has largely been a win-win situation in Europe for blue collar workers.

What has been devastating for the mid-west is that the exporting of jobs was politically and financially supported. Companies would receive subsidies to "globalise".

Part of the UK have been very badly hit by globalism - which arguably was one of the major factors in the Brexit vote. Similarly, the support for National Front in France was, as far as I understand it, largely in areas where there have been steep downturns in traditional industries.

Edit: I was a Remain voter - but I can completely why so many people were angry and wanted a protest vote. Just that I don't think the EU really caused many of the problems people were complaining about so that coming out of the EU is unlikely to actually resolve this issues.

So if you force Apple to make iPhone in USA with USA workers and materials then you know the other countries would also do the same and will not buy the iPones or but a huge tax on them, then you get less iPhones made so in the end you don't get that many wrokers/materials used. For Apple case it may be possible that much more money are extracted from non US countries then put from US in those countries, problem is where the profit is spent.

If it were 100% globalism than why is tech so concentrated?