In Asian countries, i.e. Taiwan, China, SK, Japan, Vietnam, as well as, say Mexico after NAFTA/NAFTA 2.0, what are the numbers regarding general purchasing power?
On the other hand wages in China have shot up and the huge pool of cheap rural labour is mostly tapped out. Low end manufacturing is moving to other countries, Samsung now does most of their smartphone final assembly in Vietnam but those countries are smaller. That trend is playing out it's end game. Employment in the US and Europe was rising, and came close to 100% before the Pandemic.
So I actually agree with your criticism, but not that there's nothing positive about it. Things change, overall I think things are changing for the better but that's never a painless process. That's why although I'm a believing market capitalist, I also support social programs and universal health care. If corporations deserve bailouts, so do ordinary citizens. We're all in it together.
I would have no problem with that if it didn't happen at the cost of American worker which it clearly did.
> Employment in the US and Europe was rising, and came close to 100% before the Pandemic.
You can thank the "nationalistic" trade policies of Trumps USA towards China for that. In Europe on the other hand (which had no such policies) unemployment especially in the periphery was and is still sky high and the situation was looking pretty grim also before the pandemic.
As for globalisation, the US became the dominant global economy how exactly? Protectionism, aside from being an autocratic intrusion into the freedoms of citizens, just doesn't work.
Take the US steel industry, a main target of Trump protectionism. Yes blast furnace employment is marginally up, but steel mill employment has been hammered because it largely depends on working imported steel. The domestic furnaces can't expand fast enough to meet supply, and don't produce some of the steels needed by manufacturing anyway. As a result manufacturers consuming steel are facing inflated prices and reduced competitiveness. It's unintended consequences all over the place.
We have a long way to go before the US system feels like a a kindly helping grandfather rather than an abusive angry father that blames you for not working harder.
Globalization does increase inequality, particularly in countries with a lot of capital, but it also makes the very poor better off. What the US calls the middle classes do stagnate, though, and capitalists are the biggest winners - which, don't forget, also includes pension funds as a significant fraction.
Most of the top 1% are wage slaves like everyone else. The top 1% by income isn't what's interesting; it's the top 1% by assets. Wealth inequality is much bigger than income inequality.
So the reason why Chinese masses are so much better off today is this very "one-sided" version of globalism. You might as well call it nationalism.
Which is more or less what the US did with China.
Nationalism made China rich. Not globalism.
My bank account tells a different story. Only very few people got richer. General purchasing power fell off like cliff in the US after the 70s when all the outsourcing happened. There is nothing positive about globalization. The bad effects are somewhat mitigated by a massive amount of technological progress.
> closing borders to competitors outside eventually leads to inferior product.
There is no proof for that. With close borders you can simply steal the intellectual property of your competitor and match the quality within a year. The Chinese are doing this for decades.
> In general though, everyone is lifted up and made richer over time
This is quantifiable wrong. Maybe you have to get out of your filter bubble. If anything globalization leads to more inequality. The statistics about how the top 1% make all the money whereas everybody else loses are neither controversial nor new.