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.
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).