This is what capitalism does. Crossing borders might make things easier because laws and the cost of doing business will vary, but using your power to squeeze every cent you possibly can out of your business partners is a function of capitalism and not globalism.

No, mercantilist and imperialist societies (Roman Empire, British Empire) did this long before the modern era of private capital. Capitalism is just another in a long line of systems under which wealth and power concentrates into the hands of a few and the many are disadvantaged. The only new thing here is the degree to which technology can extend lines of communication and trade.

Except mercantilist and imperialist societies got their way through violence. They didn't really have "business partners" to squeeze in a modern sense. They had subjects they would steal from and oppress. Capitalism was supposed to be different. Apple notably doesn't have a standing army bigger than the US like the East India Company did in relation to England. If the results end up looking similar, that is a huge indictment of the system.

It's cheaper without having a standing army. I wouldn't say that capitalism is another system, i would just say it's an evolution of imperialistic society that reached the equilibrium of most profit and least resistance from the people

What do you suggest as an alternative to our imperfect capitalism?

Star Trek

I too look forward to the post scarcity society that replicators would enable, but until then we as a species really need to learn to rein it in before we consume ourselves into a corner we can't get out of.

Globalism prevent wars by making countries dependant to each others (Montesquieu Doux commerce theory).

Globalism permits to all countries around the globe to develop.

Nobody is preventing these countries to set laws about environment and working condition (which they actually do).

And by the way, I invite you to go to these countries and visit the factories there, and you will realize that western companies are raising standards (security and quality) on their suppliers.

> Globalism prevent wars by making countries dependant to each others (Montesquieu Doux commerce theory).

He was wrong though, it appears, no? I mean one could argue that there would be more wars without globalism (I'd counter argue there would be less weapons) but one cannot say "globalism prevents wars" in general.

Coming from, let's say, 2nd-world-country that receives it's fair share of outsourcing...

There's absolutely a big push to keep employment laws as well as other laws „flexible“. And keep salaries as low as realistically possible. Otherwise MUH INVESTORS will go somewhere else. To be fair, it's not (just) foreign investors. Local elite is making $$$ providing support to incoming companies. Real estate moguls, construction companies, subcontractors etc.

Ultimately it is a race to the bottom to appease the sacred investor and let local elite enrich themselves.

No, it's a race to the bottom. It forces the countries to which manufacturing is outsourced to, to not have strict labour laws, low salaries, lenient pollution control and keep conditions generaly favourable for the company, at the cost of the people working there, or else the multi-billion dollar corpos will turn to another country to get the cheapest manufacturing possible

Unfortunately your theory falls apart once you read literally a single book on macroeconomics.

My theory that multi billion dollar companies base decisions like where to manufacture on costs? Or my theory that this set up forces lenient labour laws? I really do not know anything about economics, so would love to hear what you have to say. Would be helpful if you could link some things too

> would love to hear what you have to say

What he said, by implication, was "read a book on macroeconomics".