Will Globalization Come Back to Haunt Us?

[hanselthecaretaker]

Why your iPhone may never be Made in the USA

"Made in America" is rare, even though polls show Americans want it.

www.cnet.com

Between COVID and the various shortages putting a huge strain lately on our ability to supply demand, it shines a light on how dependent we’ve become for…well, pretty much everything. Sad part is I can really only see greed as the defining factor for how we wound up here.

 

[tippy2k2]

Much like how American's talk about how we need and support Third Parties but then just vote for the big two or that we need to support less shitty businesses as we put another 20 pack of lightbulbs into our Amazon Cart, we LOVE to talk the talk but no one (or at least not nearly enough) walks the walk.

It's cheaper to buy products that were made overseas so that's what most people buy. They'll scream at the top of their lungs that we should be buying American until it comes to actually buying a product, in which then the extra $5 for that American product becomes too much to handle.

 

[Worgen]

Globalism is awesome, it encourages cooperation between nations, furthers the exchange of cultures and allows for cheaper products. Sure there are downsides as well, but the positives outweigh them and most of the negatives can occur without globalism anyway.

 

[happyninja42]

Personally I think our problem is that we are still all operating in a nationalist mindset, while our economy and society has clearly expanded into a global framework. And there's basically no way to reverse it, though I don't think that's the way to go at all. Not just the US mind you, most of the countries still work this way, and have a disturbingly large % (that seems to be gaining power every year) of their population actively trying to create more and more divisions between us, which just adds fuel to the fire. They pass laws, and enact policies that just make it all worse, and the whole thing strains at the seems.

It's this insane combination of Keeping Up With the Joneses, and Fuck the Jonses That Live Over There In That Other Country.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Personally I think our problem is that we are still all operating in a nationalist mindset, while our economy and society has clearly expanded into a global framework. And there's basically no way to reverse it, though I don't think that's the way to go at all. Not just the US mind you, most of the countries still work this way, and have a disturbingly large % (that seems to be gaining power every year) of their population actively trying to create more and more divisions between us, which just adds fuel to the fire. They pass laws, and enact policies that just make it all worse, and the whole thing strains at the seems.

It's this insane combination of Keeping Up With the Joneses, and Fuck the Jonses That Live Over There In That Other Country.

I... on't understand the discrepancy between what you dislike and what you think will fix it. I believe you are someone that dislikes ruling elites and ostentatiously wealthy people and companies deciding how everyone else lives while they live a charmed life, yes? Or to give an example, I assume based on what I know of your character, that you would believe that The British Empire was a bad thing, yes? Where a small group of people from a small country held control over far distant people, people like those of India, right? Do you believe the people of India were right to reject British rule so that the people of their country decided what they did? That's a type of nationalism.

Nationalism of the type that leads a country to think it is better than others and believes it should control them "for their own good" is a type of nationalism. But wanting your own nation to govern itself so that the people are representing themselves is also a type of nationalism. So what exactly does someone mean when they use the term "globalism"?

 

[happyninja42]

I... on't understand the discrepancy between what you dislike and what you think will fix it. I believe you are someone that dislikes ruling elites and ostentatiously wealthy people and companies deciding how everyone else lives while they live a charmed life, yes? Or to give an example, I assume based on what I know of your character, that you would believe that The British Empire was a bad thing, yes? Where a small group of people from a small country held control over far distant people, people like those of India, right? Do you believe the people of India were right to reject British rule so that the people of their country decided what they did? That's a type of nationalism.

Yes I think a single country, ruling other regions as supplicants to itself, is a bad thing. In theory I guess you could say it doesn't inherently mean a bad thing, but history suggests that very few actual examples of it, actually had the other people's best interests in mind.

Nationalism of the type that leads a country to think it is better than others and believes it should control them "for their own good" is a type of nationalism. But wanting your own nation to govern itself so that the people are representing themselves is also a type of nationalism.

Yes, but the reality is that the majority of examples of nationalism, are the former. The "We're better than you." mentality. So again, while theoretically there could be some concept of nationalism that isn't inherently based on an Us vs Them mindset, and fosters that mindset at the expense of villainizing those different from them. It doesn't appear to be a very popular, or effective form of nationalism.

So what exactly does someone mean when they use the term "globalism"?

I usually use it to broadly refer to the concept of actually seeing ourselves as HUMANS, and not Americans, or Mexicans, or Europeans, etc. That since the beginning all of our actions have impacted everyone else, and our self-made society/economy, has evolved to a global level already, and has been for decades. But we're still all focused on "I'mma get my slice" at the expense of everyone else. And it's easy to think that, because "Fuck them, they're just dirty foreigners, they're not True Americans, so I don't give a shit what happens to them", is apparently a very appealing mindset for a lot of people. Because they've been taught for generations to think that way about other people. I mean fuck even just within US mindset alone, we are further divided into regions of the country, states, and again often have this "We can do it ourselves, and fuck the rest of you" attitude. Just look at Texas, proudly waving their dick about, claiming full independent sustainability, and the first crisis pops up, their infrastructure breaks down, and they start trying to blame everyone BUT their own narrow minded view of the world.

They can think that all they want, the reality is we are all dependent on each other. So, having a global mindset, and embracing globalism, means (to me at least, though I assume most probably consider something close to what I'm describing), is putting aside our petty fucking differences, stop seeing anything other than just another human being, irrespective of geographical origin, and finding a way to handle our shit in a way that benefits the most, harms the least, and isn't predicated on a system of continued consumption for the sake of consumption, leading to an inevitable systemic collapse of our own making.

That clear things up for you?

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Yes I think a single country, ruling other regions as supplicants to itself, is a bad thing. In theory I guess you could say it doesn't inherently mean a bad thing, but history suggests that very few actual examples of it, actually had the other people's best interests in mind.


Yes, but the reality is that the majority of examples of nationalism, are the former. The "We're better than you." mentality. So again, while theoretically there could be some concept of nationalism that isn't inherently based on an Us vs Them mindset, and fosters that mindset at the expense of villainizing those different from them. It doesn't appear to be a very popular, or effective form of nationalism.


I usually use it to broadly refer to the concept of actually seeing ourselves as HUMANS, and not Americans, or Mexicans, or Europeans, etc. That since the beginning all of our actions have impacted everyone else, and our self-made society/economy, has evolved to a global level already, and has been for decades. But we're still all focused on "I'mma get my slice" at the expense of everyone else. And it's easy to think that, because "Fuck them, they're just dirty foreigners, they're not True Americans, so I don't give a shit what happens to them", is apparently a very appealing mindset for a lot of people. Because they've been taught for generations to think that way about other people. I mean fuck even just within US mindset alone, we are further divided into regions of the country, states, and again often have this "We can do it ourselves, and fuck the rest of you" attitude. Just look at Texas, proudly waving their dick about, claiming full independent sustainability, and the first crisis pops up, their infrastructure breaks down, and they start trying to blame everyone BUT their own narrow minded view of the world.

They can think that all they want, the reality is we are all dependent on each other. So, having a global mindset, and embracing globalism, means (to me at least, though I assume most probably consider something close to what I'm describing), is putting aside our petty fucking differences, stop seeing anything other than just another human being, irrespective of geographical origin, and finding a way to handle our shit in a way that benefits the most, harms the least, and isn't predicated on a system of continued consumption for the sake of consumption, leading to an inevitable systemic collapse of our own making.

That clear things up for you?

Yes.

However, I also don't see it as being possible to have all countries and people's act that way. As you said, even within the US we have lots of different groups of people with their own wants and needs.
In order to have people work together they need to have the same goal which can be difficult to achieve even with a small group of people. I don't see how one would expect us to ever get entire countries to act any different.

 

[happyninja42]

Yes.

However, I also don't see it as being possible to have all countries and people's act that way. As you said, even within the US we have lots of different groups of people with their own wants and needs.
In order to have people work together they need to have the same goal which can be difficult to achieve even with a small group of people. I don't see how one would expect us to ever get entire countries to act any different.

I didn't say it was an easy goal, I was just clarifying where I think the problem is. We are operating in a worldwide society, but thinking on an insular, smaller mindset/goal. And it's causing problems, on every level.

As to never being able to get everyone on the same page...yeah, I mean it is my "best case scenario" for humanity, which means it's probably impossible, or at least WAAAY off in our future. I don't think there is anything inherently impossible about humanity as a whole getting on board the "let's look out for each other at all times in all ways" bandwagon, considering how many aspects of human behavior we have killed off, from centuries past. We learn, we adapt, we improve. I don't think it will happen in my lifetime, but I think we could be doing a LOT more to foster a global mindset, instead of what a lot of people are currently doing, in actively pushing against it, and causing further division for their own personal gain.

But we currently have a culture, that encourages, and emphasizes goals and things as being Super Important, that ultimately aren't, and the pursuit of them only seem to further foster a competitive, greedy mindset, without any consideration for the long term ramifications, both on other people, and the planet in general.

I wish I had a clear answer on how to fix it, other than "everyone grow the fuck up and develop more empathy for their fellow human beings." But, as that guy in Saints Row 4 said :
Wow...the only clip of this I could find has some fairly NSFW visuals, and...well dialogue from Saints Row, so...yeah, careful watching this

Spoiler

For those who don't want to click the link

"That's not a plan, that's a GOAL!"

 

[Hades]

To some extend it already has with disaster projects like Trumpism or Brexit being successfully marketed as opposition against Globalism.

 

[Revnak]

It’s just imperialism. It’s the same as when the East India Company was doing this, same as when it was Cecil Rhodes, same as when it was the Rockefellers. Capitalism repeatedly exploiting the same places for similar resources doesn’t deserve a new word for when it is painted to look multi-racial or whatever.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Yeah, globalism would be great if it weren't just code for capitalists exploiting the impoverished on a national scale.

I'm sorry, "taking advantage of different costs of living to uplift developing nations"

 

[Gergar12]

Yes, I am sure taking palm oil from Indonesia so that rich countries can use shampoo, and will eventually lead to climate change that affects both is so efficient.

 

[Generals]

Yes, I am sure taking palm oil from Indonesia so that rich countries can use shampoo, and will eventually lead to climate change that affects both is so efficient.

Well yes actually. Palm oil is by far the most land efficient vegetable oil to produce. And it may even be less water consuming than many alternatives (but not that sure about that one). So if produced in a controlled manner it allows us to save a whole lot of nature.

 

[stroopwafel]

It’s just imperialism. It’s the same as when the East India Company was doing this, same as when it was Cecil Rhodes, same as when it was the Rockefellers. Capitalism repeatedly exploiting the same places for similar resources doesn’t deserve a new word for when it is painted to look multi-racial or whatever.

Globalization is much more about mutual dependence through cheap production and long supply lines. Western countries could never compete on price but for emerging economies this outsourcing of production have lifted billions out of poverty. China has become a rival superpower primarily through it's exports. The U.S. might want to be less dependent on China and China might want to be less dependent on exports but it still guarantees a (if somewhat uneasy) peace between two superpowers. Globalization stabilizes international relations by giving countries too much to lose.

You can't turn back the clock like some people would want. Brexit for example led to massive shortages in construction b/c Polish workers all had to leave but who is going to do the work now? Western countries are just too old and retired to compensate for those shortages with trade jobs themselves being undervalued. Too many liberal arts degrees and too little skilled laborers. Similarly you can't relocate entire production sites for the simple fact that consumer goods will become unaffordable. Companies won't be able to compete on price and personnel shortages will slow down the production process which will put even more pressure on price due to scarcity. That is with even ignoring the global competition over resources. China for example won't care if it has to do business with the Taliban to secure huge reservoirs of copper.

Globalization is much more the product of a multipolar world where international capital is the decisive factor rather than any one 'imperial' superpower of old. The supply chain meanwhile is mutually dependent. It leads to this interesting dichotomy where capital that the economy depends on is already post nation state but politically there is a resurgence of nationalist tendencies by those who feel left behind. Even if that is ultimately just nostalgia to a bygone era.

 

[Hawki]

Depends how you define "bite" and "us."

By serendipity, the book I'm reading now (The Silk Roads) demonstrates how globalization has its roots over thousands of years. Multi-continental trade routes? Check. Hot commodities changing over time, and thus altering the balance of economic power? Check. Intense competition over these trade routes and the ability to produce consumer goods? Check. Basically, and this has been demonstrated in the 20th century, the more trade you conduct, the more wealth the societies involved in the trade experience. And that's generally been true for most of human history, or at least across Eurasia and North Africa.

On the other hand, I can list downsides of globalization off the top of my head - economies become less self-sufficient, and there's some bizzare trade patterns where, for instance, fish caught in Swedish waters can be sent to China for gutting, and then sold back to Sweden to be consumed. And while globalization does produce more wealth overall, it does seem to exacerbate inequality (see the Elephant Curve).

Overall, I'd say globalization is a net positive, but there's still winners and losers. If your job's been outsourced, or if your land's been ruined (but hey, GDP), then you're going to have a different view on it.

To some extend it already has with disaster projects like Trumpism or Brexit being successfully marketed as opposition against Globalism.

That's more a mark against those projects rather than globalization itself though.

 

[Hawki]

Yes, I am sure taking palm oil from Indonesia so that rich countries can use shampoo, and will eventually lead to climate change that affects both is so efficient.

Well first, palm oil is used in more than shampoo. Second, sad fact is that palm oil is still better for the environment than the alternatives.

Globalization is much more the product of a multipolar world where international capital is the decisive factor rather than any one 'imperial' superpower of old. The supply chain meanwhile is mutually dependent. It leads to this interesting dichotomy where capital that the economy depends on is already post nation state but politically there is a resurgence of nationalist tendencies by those who feel left behind. Even if that is ultimately just nostalgia to a bygone era.

I wouldn't go that far, but I've come across the idea that globalization has reduced the chance of war, however indirectly.

For instance, California, IIRC, is the fourth largest economy in the world by itself. However, there's no reason to actually invade California, because its wealth is derived from the likes of Silicon Valley. This was explained in Sapiens (an excellent book) better, but there's the idea that because so much of the economy is effectively ephemeral in the 21st century, there's no longer the economic motivations for war in the way it was throughout human history. I mean, obviously war's still going on, but even so, we're living in the most peaceful period there is in human history. Chances are that global trade has contributed to that.

 

[Silvanus]

Well yes actually. Palm oil is by far the most land efficient vegetable oil to produce. And it may even be less water consuming than many alternatives (but not that sure about that one). So if produced in a controlled manner it allows us to save a whole lot of nature.

Perhaps it has the potential to be less impactful. In practice, the palm oil industry as it now exists has proven to be pretty despicable, driving deforestation and habitat destruction. And unlike some other oils (like olive, which can be environmentally destructive too) the damage is concentrated in biomes that are already at major risk: Sumatra, Borneo.

In short, buy fair trade where possible, and limit the amount.