What is the alternative? Richer countries voluntarily transferring wealth to poorer countries? Richer countries hoarding wealth because it is not politically popular to transfer wealth to poorer countries?
Can also replace countries with tribes of any size delineated by any given arbitrary characteristic(s).
But if it keeps getting transferred, how can that last forever? Over time, the gaps between countries shrink in that system. So "labor cost exploitation" puts itself out of a job.
[0] globalization is corporations more than "countries" voluntarily transferring wealth, sure, but... I don't think you can argue it hasn't increased wealth in those countries
I can't wait for that small and poor country to manufacture its own modern chips (perhaps in 100-200 years) so that it can enjoy the technology available today(i.e cheap smartphones, TVs etc). I thought HN is smarter than that. The future is multi planetary not self sufficiency.
Even if there were a network of planets. They'd need to be self sufficient in key areas (food, air, water, shelter) as the time and energy needed to trade is likely too much for robust exchanges.
If you have valuable goods/services you can offset the transport costs and exchange them for food or whatever you need.
The same rules apply at the individual level. How many engineers are self sufficient? How many cities are self sufficient? Is it really worth it to build all kind of redudant systems (i.e people building bunkers for their families and learning survival skills) ? I think we already know the answer.
On the other hand countries that must import food, suffer greatly when there’s any economic shock. Basic food stocks can double or tripe in price due to inflation affecting imports most strongly. And the country is trapped: it must export in order to get money to buy food, however demand is already down. Add to that that many counties run on credit, so failing an import/export balance leads to additional debt, increased inflation, and a vicious spiral to economic ruin.
Yes those are the only two options, totally unrestricted free trade*, or a total ban on trade. There's no middle ground, no spectrum.
*Except for what restrictions "free trade" agreements place on national legislation, of course. Can't have rogue countries reducing copyright length or the scope of patentable subject matter.
But you're conflating nationalism with imperialism, as is so common these days.
And somehow you think that in the current system where multinational corporations sneak anti-consumer legislation into trade deals, poor countries don't get the short stick. Why? Who do you think benefits when poor countries are made to agree to onerous patent and copyright protections, and forced open internal markets, that prevents them from growing or protecting local industries?
> So you think a less free trade will reduce copyright length?
Copyright length is literally written into trade agreements and other international treaties, yet you are incredulous?
Whoever abandons the globalisation will find itself poorer. That was my whole point. And yeah, TSMC is a global/foreign company so that praised investment is part of the globalisation. The moment U.S becomes protectionist against Taiwan you can say good bye to TSMC. TSMC in the U.S does not represent the death of globalisation. I would say on the contrary. U.S provided good incentives for TMSC and other GLOBAL players to manufacture in the U.S. When the incentives move somewhere else so the capital/factories(i.e see the exodus from China).
No matter how you spin it globalisation is here to stay regardless of what one big player does(i.e U.S or China).
Does not exactly sound like a desirable state
If cheap labour is no longer possible/desirable, then near fully autonomous factories driven by next-gen AI and robotics becomes significantly more viable.
Now globalization is unpopular in the west because the west realized neo-liberalism is bullshit, for lack of a better term.
? That is globalization. It's arbitrage through nations borders. Arbitrage is not limited to financial instruments but can be extended to Labor, Weather and Culture.
> * the most advanced countries have seen how quickly that edge can be lost if you outsource to this extent, which could lead to more proprietariness and a desire to enlarge gaps in absolute lifestyle instead of short-term cost-minimization; especially if armed conflict stays hotter than it was in the 90s
Sure, in a truly globalized world, every country will be arbitraged to equality. That's a feature not a bug.
> * on the other hand, if closing labor cost and standard of living gaps continue in the future, globalization makes less sense because paying the logistics penalties and shipping costs in a world with more-or-less equivalent labor costs everywhere becomes stupid - sooner or later you run out of cheaper places to outsource too.
This assumes all geographies have the same advantages. I'm pretty sure it's more profitable to produce bananas in African jungle; and also impossible to pump oil out of Japan. Globalization re-enforces local advantage. On equilibrium, only your local advantage will prevail as everything else will get arbed to death.
> Outside of raw materials, what do you need from halfway across the globe that none of the millions of people within a few hundred miles couldn't figure out how to do or copy?
Tropical fruits, Highly advanced computer chips, iPhone made by factories all around the world and assembled nearby, Internet services, Medical equipment, the list will goes on. Now if you are saying who will roast your coffee, cut your hair and wash your car; yeah it'll be a few miles around.
Also: Shipping material halfway through the world is stupidly cheap.
I disagree. The U.S. which has relatively high labor costs, has nevertheless been a leading recipient of foreign direct investment.
Specialization is a far stronger driver. Labor cost differentials narrow over time but specialization can be compounding.
Can that continue forever?
I'm not sure that will come back in the same way because I think there will be a lot of pressure from both sides:
* the most advanced countries have seen how quickly that edge can be lost if you outsource to this extent, which could lead to more proprietariness and a desire to enlarge gaps in absolute lifestyle instead of short-term cost-minimization; especially if armed conflict stays hotter than it was in the 90s
* on the other hand, if closing labor cost and standard of living gaps continue in the future, globalization makes less sense because paying the logistics penalties and shipping costs in a world with more-or-less equivalent labor costs everywhere becomes stupid - sooner or later you run out of cheaper places to outsource too. Both knowledge work and "real-world" production benefit from short turnaround times and easy communication, so barriers based on specialization alone seem very hard to maintain in that world, especially across countries where IP restrictions often aren't enforced that strictly. Outside of raw materials, what do you need from halfway across the globe that none of the millions of people within a few hundred miles couldn't figure out how to do or copy?