parsing out the false song of globalization
===============
“Globalization makes it impossible for modern societies to collapse in isolation, as did Easter Island and the Greenland Norse in the past. Any society in turmoil today, no matter how remote … can cause trouble for prosperous societies on other continents and is also subject to their influence (whether helpful or destabilizing). For the first time in history, we face the risk of a global decline. But we also are the first to enjoy the opportunity of learning quickly from developments in societies anywhere else in the world today, and from what has unfolded in societies at any time in the past.“
Jared Diamond
==================
“At this moment we all face a choice. We can choose to press forward with a better model of cooperation and integration. Or we can retreat into a world sharply divided, and ultimately in conflict, along age-old lines of nation and tribe and race and religion.”
September 20, 2016, Barack Obama told the UN General Assembly
=================
“I will always put America first, just like you, as the leaders of your countries, will always and should always put your countries first. As long as I hold this office, I will defend America’s interest above all else. ”
September 19. 2018 Donald Trump told the UN General Assembly
===========================
‘Washington, D.C. is now the epicenter of instability in the world. What it means is something that our friends and allies around the world have taken for granted for 70 years is no longer something that they can take for granted.”
Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution
==================
- Authors note: critique of globalization shouldn’t lead to nationalism, protectionism or isolationism, the dull axe narratives which suggest that are wrong. The leading voices of nationalism foster dull thinking which encourages a country, United States in particular, to retreat from a trade battle that is theirs to win should they elect to stay engaged. Just to get it out of the way upfront. I imagine some people would call me a ‘globalist’ <albeit that sounds like a bad name to be called simply for believing that a globalized economy benefits all>. But I would be naive to not see that a reordering of the globalized economy has begun. While globalization has always had its warts, America has always led, guided, and benefited from its central role in the web of global economics. Nationalist/protectionist voices have shredded that web with loose rhetoric and offering only instability & uncertainty as well as a slightly warped view <and selling of> of “sovereignty.”
===
Globalization is not a new phenomenon. It has existed, and benefited, countries for centuries. Paradoxically, cooperation is necessary to maximize one’s own benefit. In a zero-sum game your growth potential has an additive cap. In a cooperation world your growth potential is either multiplicative or exponential in terms of a cap. Globalization is, was, and will always be, a flawed cooperation world. By ‘flawed’ I mean there will always be competing interests, but, it will always be underpinned by an understanding cooperation benefits all.
That said. Watch closely. Before our eyes, the world is both coming together and growing apart as never before. The unwinding of the existing globalisation system is going to happen, despite huge investments having been made IN the existing system. With national security (rather than merely commercial resilience or economic competition) becoming a decisionmaking driver, the unwinding is happening faster than one would have imagined. The decades (and tens of billions of dollars) Western firms have invested in capacity in China, as well as the depth of the supply chain and expertise that has emerged there, are make breaking it up a challenge but businesses are motivated and governments interested in facilitating the changes.
Which leads me to suggest globalization isn’t just about trade.
In a globalized world of globalized values and globalized trade, and a globalized economy held together increasingly by multinational companies doing business everywhere it is silly to reduce everything into “Western values.” The world is dotted with dictatorships, autocratic regimes and thuggish governance all of whom participate in the global economy. That said. Globalization, at least from an American perspective, has never been solely about economics. The foundation of an Americanized globalization incorporates some version of diplomacy and democracy. Whether we like it or not they are intertwined <for good and for bad>.
But. Let’s be clear. Once Great Britain ceded its spot as the ‘leader of globalization’ in the early 1900’s … America has owned that spot and it behooves America to champion its type of doing business, i.e., champion the environmental contexts within which business and communities can thrive, because it creates a sense of resilience to the structure of that globalization. Its not pure, but threaded with some important things. It also has had an impact in some strange places. We have even seen the President of China even use some of the words of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address:
“No country should view its development path on its own. Development is of the people, by the people and for the people.”
Which leads me to “transactional politics.”
Globalization has certainly benefited the ordinary American as well as contributed some expenses to the benefit. And, yet, viewed on a transaction by transaction basis globalization can look fairly crappy to the every working person.
The problem is, well, there are a couple of problems:
- whether you have a crappy view of it or not, globalization is now a fact of life and
- if you have a crappy view of it, well, it is most likely a wrong view.
Trade, particularly free trade, isn’t a zero-sum game. When NAFTA took effect in 1994, trade between the United States and Mexico was only $50 billion each way since then U.S. exports to Mexico have nearly quintupled to $250 billionish which supports 3 million U.S. jobs. Imports to the United States from Mexico are close to $300 billion and those, too, support millions of American jobs. The world is now totally interdependent. This is why any attempt by the United States to retreat from the world’s interconnectedness will:
- instigate a global economic disaster and
- make it even crappier for the everyday working person.
We cannot go back.
It may not feel like where we are is great or that maybe we aren’t getting “the best deal”, but we are not get a “raw deal” and the road which got us to where we are today just doesn’t exist anymore. But globalization isn’t really being challenged by the past nor by economy or jobs or any real practical thing it is actually being challenged by trust … or lack of trust <which needs to exist in order to enlighten and diminish ignorance on a topic>.
As it seems with almost everything these days there is no trust. The public opinion has a lack of trust in any institution which is associated with globalization <banks, financial institutions, governments, foreign policy experts, etc.>.
This is where simplistic nationalism steps in. It is a pretty straightforward anti-globalization ‘do not trust institutions’ stance.
Nationalism believes that the interests of the working class have been sacrificed in favor of the big corporations that have been encouraged to invest around the world and thereby deprive American workers of their jobs. They typically compound this argument by stating large-scale immigration has weakened the bargaining power of American workers and served to lower their wages.
This attacks globalization on three fronts:
- globalization has forgotten the working person
- globalization has depressed the working income therefore creating inequality, and
- globalization has cost me ‘the job I deserve’.
All of that is false in some form or fashion (pieces of it may be true). Globalization certainly puts stress on labor, but inequality is driven first and foremost by advances in technology and second by globalization that has exposed U.S. workers to competition from hundreds of millions of people in other countries. Stepping back from globalization will not bring jobs back to the United States in sectors such as manufacturing and coal simply by renegotiating existing trade deals, such as NAFTA, or relaxing environmental rules. But more importantly is that the U.S. manufacturing sector has in fact expanded since the 2008 recession, even as manufacturing employment has decreased. The problem is that the new on-shored work is being performed in highly automated factories.
Regardless. Anti-globalisation rhetoric centers on economic protectionism <some call it nationalism>:
“It is the consequence of a leadership class that worships globalism over Americanism … Our politicians took away from the people their means of making a living and supporting their families.”
These voices warn against “the false song of globalism” criticizing a growing world economic interdependency that they argue hurt American workers.
Well. They are right and wrong. Wrong in that it is because of the elite or bad political decisions, but right
n that globalization does affect a nation. Mostly, globalization exposes you to competition. It is almost, metaphorically, like you are an elite team winning a large % of your games and then you step out of your conference and get smoked by another team. My answer isn’t to not schedule the other team, nor is it to change the rules so that it makes it harder for them to win, it is for me to go back to the drawing board and figure out how to win.
I absolutely agree much more needs to be done to improve the lives of workers impacted by globalization. But the idea that protectionism is the answer is wrong.
Free trade (with governing policy augmentation) has long presented advantages and disadvantages to Americans. It has been linked to outsourcing as manufacturing jobs have shifted to countries with lower wages. But it has also contributed to significantly cheaper consumer goods for American consumers and opened up new markets to US exporters <which creates jobs>. I, clearly, support managed free trade, but say ‘reject globalization at your own risk.’
Which leads me to responsibility.
While globalization certainly has its pluses and minuses the biggest concern is responsibility.
“The world is always at fault. China is at fault. Japan is at fault, Germany is at fault and even U.K’s Brexit is at fault too. Everyone is out to cheat America of our lunch. America is one great nation that is willing to consume more than we can produce for export. We don’t blame ourselves for our deficit balance problem with every nation. It’s obviously China’s fault. It’s definitely Russia’s fault. It’s my dog’s fault that it barks at me when I went out of the house this morning.
Why is everyone’s fault and not ours.”
Nationalist policies that attempt to raise American workers by depriving developing nations of the trade they need to grow is not a path toward long term success. We need to recognize how globalization benefits millions, by reducing the price of goods throughout the world, reducing economic instability and increasing overall prosperity globally & domestically.
We need reign in some of the predatory aspects of capitalism like cutting out tax breaks for companies shipping jobs overseas and offer support and help transition the ‘losers’ left behind to adapt to fill changing industries. Coal and steel jobs ARE NEVER coming back we need help workers transition to more viable industries. And we CAN solve this problem. Undo the tax and accounting rules and laws that reward short term profit taking over long-term DOMESTIC investment. Roll back the trade deals and tariffs that make it more profitable for companies to move jobs and wages offshore. Reward companies that reward American workers with good jobs, pay, and benefits, and punish companies that don’t. Level the playing field for American workers by implementing taxes/tariffs on goods and services from foreign countries. And just as importantly, revitalize the unions by installing oversight to ensure they serve their member’s best interests and not the bosses and criminal elements, so that collective bargaining is once again effective. I would note what I am, fundamentally, suggesting is free trade and the ‘invisible hand’ is an unhealthy myth. The market, globalization included, needs to be constrained and nudged into shapes conducive to the greater good and away from a winner-take-all endgame.
Which leads me to facing reality.
We need to accept that the rest of the world is doing their own manufacturing & business and are gradually increasing their own standard of living. Today’s version of globalization is forcing a re-balancing which will, obviously, create some winners and some losers. But in a global economy the winners don’t win as easily and the losers don’t lose as much as they could have. That doesn’t mean losses as in slower overall growth or slower wage increase doesn’t hurt, but globalization tends to curb economic exploitation which is what offers the ‘larger than normal’ economic surges in an individual country.
Globalization, and economic interconnectedness, is here to stay. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be constantly pointing America’s compass in the right direction and aligning a cohesive plan with the intent of insuring the best interests of all citizens.
Let me end with one of the most misquoted Obama thoughts of all time:
“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Obama
Globalization has created some ‘losers’ which does create bitterness. That is reality. It is a reality that these things have been happening for decades if not centuries with regard to globalization and its pursuit of maximization of the world and its resources. And in its pursuit of maximization some things, people in particular, get minimized. And that is where nationalism and protectionism thrives – minimizing the issues to feed the bitterness and questions about globalization. Yeah. Who would have ever thought that today, with the internet and a variety of other global access resources, we would actually be making things smaller; smaller as in cocooned thinking or gathering up small groups of likeminded people. Maybe social media is maximizing the minimized mind. here is what I would say. Globalization has the potential to maximize the mind and the economies everywhere. The only false song of globalization is that, left to its own devices, it will solve everything. Nothing can solve everything. Globalization, as a tool, can HELP US solve some of the greatest problems we have including the bitterness of people left behind. Ponder.
Leave a Comment