Americans' basic choice on globalism/China

[Craig234]

It's just an economic fact that China has a lot more people than the US, who work much cheaper generally. Economics suggests that tends to lead to their being preferred for manufacturing to lower costs.

There's a choice here.

One option is that the US spends a lot on 'cheap stuff' it likes to have, that is manufactured in China. This results in a lot of America's wealth going to China; in China's manufacturing capacity growing while America's shrinks, including America's employment.

In exchange, a lot of Chinese people work hard making Americans what we want.

So, over time, you see China taking America's money, while America has less money but lots of stuff. The fact that the US is running up debt, with well over $20T, and record private debt for people and companies, all says that the US is heading to massive debt problems.

The second option is that the US keep more manufacturing in the US. But unless we want our workers to make China's wages and live in poverty, our higher cost of living means higher costs, and prices for things will shoot up, and Americans will get a lot less stuff.

In exchange, more money will stay in the US, more people will be employed to make stuff. We'll have less debt.

And IMO, politically, here's how those choices break down on who supports them.

The wealth who own the companies that make the money selling things, like the cheap costs from China, and the profits that brings. They get rich now, whatever happens from the coming debt crisis. They largely created this 'globalization' system and they feel they benefit and like it.

Many of the American people, who don't get those profits except a little through stocks, prefer the second option.

So you get a conflict: globalization for the rich, less globalization as a populist choice.

Of course, one way the American people could influence this, they rarely do - choose to pay more for American-made products. No, almost always, put two similar items side by side, one made in China for $100 and one made in the US for $200, and almost everyone will buy the $100 item.

So if option 2 is done, it has to be at a policy level.

Those seem to be the basic choices we have.

That's the option - higher cost American goods - not to 'get tough' on China generally. That's political talk, because it's what voters want to hear, that 'get tough' will give them the benefits of both options. That's not how it works. It's like saying the answer to Coronavirus is to 'get tough' by helping Americans buy more guns. It doesn't make sense or solve the problem even if it sounds good or feels good.

There are other options. Nuke China. Invade and enslave China, if it could be done. And so on. They're all some combination of evil and impractical and not worth discussing. No, we have the US a fraction the size of China, and choices to make on economics. Right now, we're headed to a massive debt crisis, and I'd suggest a global power realignment later this century, but enjoying a lot of stuff.

There are other 'fantasy' solutions. 'Just cut government waste' type things. Some of that could help - especially the military budget, the main waste - but it doesn't really address the issue. Reducing our plutocracy could help, but it also doesn't address the issue, except maybe the wealthy couldn't make the choice as much.

Which choice do the American people prefer?

 

[CMPancake]

Capitalists will eat their own faces before ever agreeing to any terms where they can't exploit human beings.

 

[Mithrae]

There are other 'fantasy' solutions.

Isn't trying to bring low-skill, repetitive jobs back to America pretty much a fantasy solution in itself? Chinese factory workers might be able to compete economically with robots - for now - but odds are that if the same factory were put in America it would end up employing only a tiny fraction as many humans. In that case wouldn't it be better (morally at least) to support the greater number of jobs and greatest development potential for humans, even if they happened to be born in a foreign country?

Fighting tooth and nail for dubious marginal benefits to an already vastly wealthy country at the expense of much greater benefits to poorer countries doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

[Surrealistik]

Isn't trying to bring low-skill, repetitive jobs back to America pretty much a fantasy solution in itself? Chinese factory workers might be able to compete economically with robots - for now - but odds are that if the same factory were put in America it would end up employing only a tiny fraction as many humans. In that case wouldn't it be better (morally at least) to support the greater number of jobs and greatest development potential for humans, even if they happened to be born in a foreign country?

Fighting tooth and nail for dubious marginal benefits to an already vastly wealthy country at the expense of much greater benefits to poorer countries doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Denying our upcoming greatest rival for world dominance, one that happens to be a democracy destroying, genocidal dystopian totalitarian state at that, the power and wealth they need to undertake their blatant, harrowing ambitions of Pax Sinica is a pretty compelling reason in and of itself. At the very least if we must insist on exporting jobs overseas for the sake of appeasing our mercenary corporations and their owning plutocrats (and I don't believe we should) that forever seek to maximize their personal bottom lines no matter the cost in terms of such pesky externalities as working conditions, safety standards, and the environment, and to encourage countries to engage in a perpetual race to the bottom in terms of regulations, wages and taxes, we should be doing business with friendlier countries that don't pose such a clear and grave dual threat to our national security and global dominion in the medium to long run.

 

[AmNat]

It's just an economic fact that China has a lot more people than the US, who work much cheaper generally. Economics suggests that tends to lead to their being preferred for manufacturing to lower costs.

There's a choice here.

One option is that the US spends a lot on 'cheap stuff' it likes to have, that is manufactured in China. This results in a lot of America's wealth going to China; in China's manufacturing capacity growing while America's shrinks, including America's employment.

In exchange, a lot of Chinese people work hard making Americans what we want.

So, over time, you see China taking America's money, while America has less money but lots of stuff. The fact that the US is running up debt, with well over $20T, and record private debt for people and companies, all says that the US is heading to massive debt problems.

The second option is that the US keep more manufacturing in the US. But unless we want our workers to make China's wages and live in poverty, our higher cost of living means higher costs, and prices for things will shoot up, and Americans will get a lot less stuff.

In exchange, more money will stay in the US, more people will be employed to make stuff. We'll have less debt.

And IMO, politically, here's how those choices break down on who supports them.

The wealth who own the companies that make the money selling things, like the cheap costs from China, and the profits that brings. They get rich now, whatever happens from the coming debt crisis. They largely created this 'globalization' system and they feel they benefit and like it.

Many of the American people, who don't get those profits except a little through stocks, prefer the second option.

So you get a conflict: globalization for the rich, less globalization as a populist choice.

Of course, one way the American people could influence this, they rarely do - choose to pay more for American-made products. No, almost always, put two similar items side by side, one made in China for $100 and one made in the US for $200, and almost everyone will buy the $100 item.

So if option 2 is done, it has to be at a policy level.

Those seem to be the basic choices we have.

That's the option - higher cost American goods - not to 'get tough' on China generally. That's political talk, because it's what voters want to hear, that 'get tough' will give them the benefits of both options. That's not how it works. It's like saying the answer to Coronavirus is to 'get tough' by helping Americans buy more guns. It doesn't make sense or solve the problem even if it sounds good or feels good.

There are other options. Nuke China. Invade and enslave China, if it could be done. And so on. They're all some combination of evil and impractical and not worth discussing. No, we have the US a fraction the size of China, and choices to make on economics. Right now, we're headed to a massive debt crisis, and I'd suggest a global power realignment later this century, but enjoying a lot of stuff.

There are other 'fantasy' solutions. 'Just cut government waste' type things. Some of that could help - especially the military budget, the main waste - but it doesn't really address the issue. Reducing our plutocracy could help, but it also doesn't address the issue, except maybe the wealthy couldn't make the choice as much.

Which choice do the American people prefer?

Just to be clear, you support tariffs against China?

 

[Craig234]

Isn't trying to bring low-skill, repetitive jobs back to America pretty much a fantasy solution in itself? Chinese factory workers might be able to compete economically with robots - for now - but odds are that if the same factory were put in America it would end up employing only a tiny fraction as many humans. In that case wouldn't it be better (morally at least) to support the greater number of jobs and greatest development potential for humans, even if they happened to be born in a foreign country?

Fighting tooth and nail for dubious marginal benefits to an already vastly wealthy country at the expense of much greater benefits to poorer countries doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Thank you for making those points. I also feel there are larger moral topics around the poor of the world who benefit from globalization, and practical topics around automation, but kept this topic simple. I tend to agree with you about the larger issue.

 

[Craig234]

Denying our upcoming greatest rival for world dominance, one that happens to be a democracy destroying, genocidal dystopian totalitarian state at that, the power and wealth they need to undertake their blatant, harrowing ambitions of Pax Sinica is a pretty compelling reason in and of itself.

And YOU make a good point as well. While I might like for poor people in China to be less poor for humanitarian reasons, if that includes strengthening tyranny by strengthening their government, we have another issue of how to deal with the authoritarianism of China's government becoming a more powerful world force. Good responses.

 

[Mithrae]

Denying our upcoming greatest rival for world dominance, one that happens to be a democracy destroying, genocidal dystopian totalitarian state at that, the power and wealth they need to undertake their blatant, harrowing ambitions of Pax Sinica is a pretty compelling reason in and of itself. At the very least if we must insist on exporting jobs overseas for the sake of appeasing our mercenary corporations and their owning plutocrats (and I don't believe we should) that forever seek to maximize their personal bottom lines no matter the cost in terms of such pesky externalities as working conditions, safety standards, and the environment, and to encourage countries to engage in a perpetual race to the bottom in terms of regulations, wages and taxes, we should be doing business with friendlier countries that don't pose such a clear and grave dual threat to our national security and global dominion in the medium to long run.

It's quite possible that the gradual increase of wealth and education levels in China will undermine its totalitarianism. That seems to be the historical norm from what I gather, though historical trends might no longer apply in the age of 'big data,' mass surveillance and ever more sophisticated forms of information control, I suppose. And of course the USA is itself a "democracy destroying, genocidal dystopian" plutocratic state which has already largely accomplished its harrowing ambitions of a Pax Americana... so while probably a lesser evil than China, arguably not by enough to warrant an emphasis on backing Team Billionaire against Team Tyrant.

But for sure, if it's possible to encourage the growth of those industries in countries like India, that would be an even worthier goal. The race to the bottom is a real concern, but as far as I can imagine the fastest way to help mitigate that would be by internationalist measures such as gradually-increasing minimum employment and environmental standards for internationally-trading companies. Protectionism and isolationism by any one country aren't going to help, and by reducing the jobs available from international companies - however meagre they may be, still often better or at least more lucrative than local alternatives - probably does more harm.

The biggest concerns I have with globalization and economic growth generally are the transport industry's contributions to climate change and resource depletion due to overconsumption; it simply doesn't make sense to imagine that we can pursue infinite growth on a finite planet. Maybe we'll have time to expand beyond the planet before that's an extinction-scale issue :lol: Or maybe the best way for folk in richer countries to help folk in poorer countries have better access to resources and so on is to consume less themselves? I can't see that ever being enacted as a national policy though.

 

[dave8383]

It's just an economic fact that China has a lot more people than the US, who work much cheaper generally. Economics suggests that tends to lead to their being preferred for manufacturing to lower costs.

There's a choice here.

One option is that the US spends a lot on 'cheap stuff' it likes to have, that is manufactured in China. This results in a lot of America's wealth going to China; in China's manufacturing capacity growing while America's shrinks, including America's employment.

In exchange, a lot of Chinese people work hard making Americans what we want.

So, over time, you see China taking America's money, while America has less money but lots of stuff. The fact that the US is running up debt, with well over $20T, and record private debt for people and companies, all says that the US is heading to massive debt problems.

The second option is that the US keep more manufacturing in the US. But unless we want our workers to make China's wages and live in poverty, our higher cost of living means higher costs, and prices for things will shoot up, and Americans will get a lot less stuff.

In exchange, more money will stay in the US, more people will be employed to make stuff. We'll have less debt.

And IMO, politically, here's how those choices break down on who supports them.

The wealth who own the companies that make the money selling things, like the cheap costs from China, and the profits that brings. They get rich now, whatever happens from the coming debt crisis. They largely created this 'globalization' system and they feel they benefit and like it.

Many of the American people, who don't get those profits except a little through stocks, prefer the second option.

So you get a conflict: globalization for the rich, less globalization as a populist choice.

Of course, one way the American people could influence this, they rarely do - choose to pay more for American-made products. No, almost always, put two similar items side by side, one made in China for $100 and one made in the US for $200, and almost everyone will buy the $100 item.

So if option 2 is done, it has to be at a policy level.

Those seem to be the basic choices we have.

That's the option - higher cost American goods - not to 'get tough' on China generally. That's political talk, because it's what voters want to hear, that 'get tough' will give them the benefits of both options. That's not how it works. It's like saying the answer to Coronavirus is to 'get tough' by helping Americans buy more guns. It doesn't make sense or solve the problem even if it sounds good or feels good.

There are other options. Nuke China. Invade and enslave China, if it could be done. And so on. They're all some combination of evil and impractical and not worth discussing. No, we have the US a fraction the size of China, and choices to make on economics. Right now, we're headed to a massive debt crisis, and I'd suggest a global power realignment later this century, but enjoying a lot of stuff.

There are other 'fantasy' solutions. 'Just cut government waste' type things. Some of that could help - especially the military budget, the main waste - but it doesn't really address the issue. Reducing our plutocracy could help, but it also doesn't address the issue, except maybe the wealthy couldn't make the choice as much.

Which choice do the American people prefer?

For decades America made better products cheaper than the competition. In many cases now that is no longer the case. That's the problem. You can't cure that by charging more for your products, you'll lose. The answer is to compete on a global scale with new products, new jobs, innovation, etc. That takes time. Reaction to the lag time is what we are going through now.

 

[Torus34]

There are a couple of factors which must be addressed if there is to be a change in buying goods made at home vs. goods made abroad. These are systemic.

The first is that under our present capitalist system corporations have, as their primary concern, the duty to earn money for their investors. This translates into maximizing profits. With corporations having long since slipped the traces of state control, they are free to go where they wish for labor, assuming only that it will improve profitability.

The second is that the sole remaining restraint on corporations, the federal government, has a legislature whose members can be, to put it delicately, influenced by money. It's not necessary for this to be spelled out in detail.

As noted in the OP the American consumer, driven by incessant advertising to possess more and more things, stretches the budget and assumes debt. That drives the consumer to seek cheaper prices for things.

Given the above, it is difficult to see how the situation can be turned around.

 

[Craig234]

For decades America made better products cheaper than the competition. In many cases now that is no longer the case. That's the problem. You can't cure that by charging more for your products, you'll lose. The answer is to compete on a global scale with new products, new jobs, innovation, etc. That takes time. Reaction to the lag time is what we are going through now.

That's a lot of fluff. New products! new jobs! innovation! It doesn't get the problem.

 

[NotreDame]

Isn't trying to bring low-skill, repetitive jobs back to America pretty much a fantasy solution in itself? Chinese factory workers might be able to compete economically with robots - for now - but odds are that if the same factory were put in America it would end up employing only a tiny fraction as many humans. In that case wouldn't it be better (morally at least) to support the greater number of jobs and greatest development potential for humans, even if they happened to be born in a foreign country?

Fighting tooth and nail for dubious marginal benefits to an already vastly wealthy country at the expense of much greater benefits to poorer countries doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Would it be better? Is it better for future generations of Americans who will be saddled with this debt? If moving the manufacturing jobs back to the U.S., or even out of China perhaps, can rationally facilitate reducing debt in the U.S., then isn’t this better?

In that case wouldn't it be better (morally at least) to support the greater number of jobs and greatest development potential for humans, even if they happened to be born in a foreign country?

Would it? What moral obligation are you invoking?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hypothetical]

It's quite possible that the gradual increase of wealth and education levels in China will undermine its totalitarianism. .

we have been trying that, and it is now obvious it does not seem to work. Their people do not have the means to force change. They just forcefully took over Hong Kong and have changed the rules there. It is now apparent that we are either going to have to oppose china, with the understanding that it might be hard going but worthwhile to stop a totalitarian state, or we are going to have to surrender and allow them to dominate, possibly with almost total control over us.

do you honestly think that their labor prices will remain low after they dominate us financially? we will pay what they want and like it, or we won;t get basic necessities. it has already been shown with the covid crisis to some extent.

 

[dave8383]

That's a lot of fluff. New products! new jobs! innovation! It doesn't get the problem.

Of course it does. You don't really believe corporations should pay more to produce a product and sell it at a higher cost do you? Never happen. Laughable.

 

[Drawdown]

Isn't trying to bring low-skill, repetitive jobs back to America pretty much a fantasy solution in itself? Chinese factory workers might be able to compete economically with robots - for now - but odds are that if the same factory were put in America it would end up employing only a tiny fraction as many humans. In that case wouldn't it be better (morally at least) to support the greater number of jobs and greatest development potential for humans, even if they happened to be born in a foreign country?

Fighting tooth and nail for dubious marginal benefits to an already vastly wealthy country at the expense of much greater benefits to poorer countries doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Labor is an increasingly small part of the cost of production for many of our goods. It is the technology/licensing intellectual rights that drive the costs up. Add in marketing, and labor is practically meaningless.

 

[Craig234]

Labor is an increasingly small part of the cost of production for many of our goods. It is the technology/licensing intellectual rights that drive the costs up. Add in marketing, and labor is practically meaningless.

It's less and less a part of the cost, but minimizing it still increases profits and will be done as much as the owners can.

 

[Mithrae]

Would it be better? Is it better for future generations of Americans who will be saddled with this debt? If moving the manufacturing jobs back to the U.S., or even out of China perhaps, can rationally facilitate reducing debt in the U.S., then isn’t this better?

Is American debt at such crisis levels?


If it is a crisis, is it actually the case that requiring American consumers to spend more money on domestically-made goods will reduce their debt? The theory is that more domestic jobs will offset that increase in spending, presumably, but how provable is that theory?

And even if the debt is at crisis levels and protectionism actually could potentially mean more money in American pockets, what basis is there for supposing that they're going to be any more frugal with it than before, rather than just piling even up more debt?

In that case wouldn't it be better (morally at least) to support the greater number of jobs and greatest development potential for humans, even if they happened to be born in a foreign country?

Would it? What moral obligation are you invoking?

Utilitarianism for one. Love your neighbour as yourself for another. And given the USA's tendency of using its economic and political clout to oppose protectionist measures in other countries, the ethic of reciprocity/golden rule comes to mind too. Maybe a better question would be to ask whether there are any moral systems from which we might conclude that fighting tooth and nail for dubious marginal benefits to an already vastly wealthy country at the detriment of much greater benefits for poorer countries is morally appropriate?

 

[Irwin Corey]

It's just an economic fact that China has a lot more people than the US, who work much cheaper generally. Economics suggests that tends to lead to their being preferred for manufacturing to lower costs.

There's a choice here.

One option is that the US spends a lot on 'cheap stuff' it likes to have, that is manufactured in China. This results in a lot of America's wealth going to China; in China's manufacturing capacity growing while America's shrinks, including America's employment.

In exchange, a lot of Chinese people work hard making Americans what we want.

So, over time, you see China taking America's money, while America has less money but lots of stuff. The fact that the US is running up debt, with well over $20T, and record private debt for people and companies, all says that the US is heading to massive debt problems.

The second option is that the US keep more manufacturing in the US. But unless we want our workers to make China's wages and live in poverty, our higher cost of living means higher costs, and prices for things will shoot up, and Americans will get a lot less stuff.

In exchange, more money will stay in the US, more people will be employed to make stuff. We'll have less debt.

And IMO, politically, here's how those choices break down on who supports them.

The wealth who own the companies that make the money selling things, like the cheap costs from China, and the profits that brings. They get rich now, whatever happens from the coming debt crisis. They largely created this 'globalization' system and they feel they benefit and like it.

Many of the American people, who don't get those profits except a little through stocks, prefer the second option.

So you get a conflict: globalization for the rich, less globalization as a populist choice.

Of course, one way the American people could influence this, they rarely do - choose to pay more for American-made products. No, almost always, put two similar items side by side, one made in China for $100 and one made in the US for $200, and almost everyone will buy the $100 item.

So if option 2 is done, it has to be at a policy level.

Those seem to be the basic choices we have.

That's the option - higher cost American goods - not to 'get tough' on China generally. That's political talk, because it's what voters want to hear, that 'get tough' will give them the benefits of both options. That's not how it works. It's like saying the answer to Coronavirus is to 'get tough' by helping Americans buy more guns. It doesn't make sense or solve the problem even if it sounds good or feels good.

There are other options. Nuke China. Invade and enslave China, if it could be done. And so on. They're all some combination of evil and impractical and not worth discussing. No, we have the US a fraction the size of China, and choices to make on economics. Right now, we're headed to a massive debt crisis, and I'd suggest a global power realignment later this century, but enjoying a lot of stuff.

There are other 'fantasy' solutions. 'Just cut government waste' type things. Some of that could help - especially the military budget, the main waste - but it doesn't really address the issue. Reducing our plutocracy could help, but it also doesn't address the issue, except maybe the wealthy couldn't make the choice as much.

Which choice do the American people prefer?

"a lot of Chinese people work hard making Americans what we want."

When I read that I took it to mean "Chinese people work hard making Americans what we want", and I thought no, they are making Americans what they want. They have made US into dutiful consumers of poor quality crap.

But, it wasn't a choice made by work-a-day AmeriCANs. "Globalization" was a choice made by the global Oligarch's that have controlled OUR government and continue to expand and solidify that control.

Work-a-day AmeriCANs don't have a choice BECAUSE WE have made the choice to fight each other over the fictitious constructs of LEFT and RIGHT that keeps us occupied while the Plutocrats enrich themselves AND impoverish and saddle US with overwhelming debt, debt created out of thin air that has to be paid back with interest that will continue to enslave US and OUR children ... FOREVER!

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Isn't trying to bring low-skill, repetitive jobs back to America pretty much a fantasy solution in itself? Chinese factory workers might be able to compete economically with robots - for now - but odds are that if the same factory were put in America it would end up employing only a tiny fraction as many humans. In that case wouldn't it be better (morally at least) to support the greater number of jobs and greatest development potential for humans, even if they happened to be born in a foreign country?

Fighting tooth and nail for dubious marginal benefits to an already vastly wealthy country at the expense of much greater benefits to poorer countries doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

China is installing more industrial robots than any other country and has been doing so for the last few years. Labor is becoming expensive in China so they want to move up the value chain. Low cost low value manufacturing is leaving China to go to even cheaper locations

 

[eman623]

It's not a binary choice. America or China. There's an entire planet of countries that can manufacture cheap stuff. Mexico, India, Vietnam, Brazil, Indonesia, etc.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

It's not a binary choice. America or China. There's an entire planet of countries that can manufacture cheap stuff. Mexico, India, Vietnam, Brazil, Indonesia, etc.

Very very few have built up the infrastructure required to support efficient manufacturing

A stable government with low crime. That limits most of Latin America. Honda had to put armed guards on shipments of their vehicles to prevent hijacking. Brazil has to have armed guards on most shipments and at the factories. None have the ports and transportation network that China built up over years

It would take all of Southeast Asia plus some other countries to come close to the workforce in China. Then you have the poorer education in those countries compared to China. China graduates 9 times the Stem students that the US does. Those are people required to make factories produce new products, maintain the existing equipment etc.

China did not get to where it is overnight and it can’t be replaced overnight. It produces 28%!of the world’s manufactured goods with it not being able to produce top quality jet engines and 5 to 7 nm computer chips. Domestically it is at 14 nm I believe

 

[eman623]

Very very few have built up the infrastructure required to support efficient manufacturing

A stable government with low crime. That limits most of Latin America. Honda had to put armed guards on shipments of their vehicles to prevent hijacking. Brazil has to have armed guards on most shipments and at the factories. None have the ports and transportation network that China built up over years

It would take all of Southeast Asia plus some other countries to come close to the workforce in China. Then you have the poorer education in those countries compared to China. China graduates 9 times the Stem students that the US does. Those are people required to make factories produce new products, maintain the existing equipment etc.

China did not get to where it is overnight and it can’t be replaced overnight. It produces 28%!of the world’s manufactured goods with it not being able to produce top quality jet engines and 5 to 7 nm computer chips. Domestically it is at 14 nm I believe

It would not take much time to ramp up production in other countries. Certainly not decades. More like a couple years tops. And India has almost as many people as China. And a stable government, a highly educated segment and low crime. Add the other countries and China is expendable. And they know that.

 

[Surrealistik]

It's quite possible that the gradual increase of wealth and education levels in China will undermine its totalitarianism. That seems to be the historical norm from what I gather, though historical trends might no longer apply in the age of 'big data,' mass surveillance and ever more sophisticated forms of information control, I suppose. And of course the USA is itself a "democracy destroying, genocidal dystopian" plutocratic state which has already largely accomplished its harrowing ambitions of a Pax Americana... so while probably a lesser evil than China, arguably not by enough to warrant an emphasis on backing Team Billionaire against Team Tyrant.

The US is far from perfect, don't get me wrong, and it has indeed been a destroyer of democracies, but Pax Americana is at least an order of magnitude better and less foreboding than Pax Sinica so yes, if I must choose between evils I will easily and unabashedly side with America over China (and we have not yet explicitly engaged in genocide as a first hand party unlike the Chinese; you can make an argument for the natives I suppose hundreds of years ago, but certainly not in the modern era). Personally, I would most prefer Pax Europa, but until the EU actually comes together as a proper supernation and stops half-assing it, that is unlikely to happen at best. Moreover the argument that China would gradually become more liberal and less authoritarian due to the opening of its markets and educational attainment was floated way back in the 70s in the time of Nixon and it clearly hasn't happened nearly 50 years later, so I frankly don't vest much stock in that idea whatsoever; if anything the nature and sophistication of the Chinese police state has grown in harmony and tandem with these things and the increasing technology available to it.

But for sure, if it's possible to encourage the growth of those industries in countries like India, that would be an even worthier goal. The race to the bottom is a real concern, but as far as I can imagine the fastest way to help mitigate that would be by internationalist measures such as gradually-increasing minimum employment and environmental standards for internationally-trading companies. Protectionism and isolationism by any one country aren't going to help, and by reducing the jobs available from international companies - however meagre they may be, still often better or at least more lucrative than local alternatives - probably does more harm.

The biggest concerns I have with globalization and economic growth generally are the transport industry's contributions to climate change and resource depletion due to overconsumption; it simply doesn't make sense to imagine that we can pursue infinite growth on a finite planet. Maybe we'll have time to expand beyond the planet before that's an extinction-scale issue :lol: Or maybe the best way for folk in richer countries to help folk in poorer countries have better access to resources and so on is to consume less themselves? I can't see that ever being enacted as a national policy though.

Well yes, exponential, infinite growth obviously isn't sustainable, so that is one point of concern that underlies all economic growth but globalization in particular.

Beyond that, the way trade is conducted is a major concern: trade must be fair as well as free, and we cannot abide countries willing to sacrifice their environment and worker conditions, as well as other important externalities in pursuit of competitive advantage. We cannot, as we did with the TPP, have multi-national corporations compile and draft the terms of trade behind closed doors, or otherwise foist upon the nations of the world a destructive and mutually undermining race to the bottom for the sake of their profitability. I would concur that multi-national mutual trade agreements are likely the best way forward, but such agreements must be fully transparent and certain to give labour and environmental experts influential seats at the table they so deserve, and this unfortunately just hasn't been the case as of late.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

It would not take much time to ramp up production in other countries. Certainly not decades. More like a couple years tops. And India has almost as many people as China. And a stable government, a highly educated segment and low crime. Add the other countries and China is expendable. And they know that.

It takes years to build ports that are large and efficient. China has the worlds busiest ports

It takes years to generate the electricity required to run factories

It takes years to build the roads and railways to move goods around

Making clothing is the easiest thing to move out and it has been for years

As for India.

It has a well educated population of about 300 million 700 million have a very poor educational level, as a country it is not exactly the most stable, with two low level conflicts going on. It is becoming more internally divided because the BJP party is Hindu Nationalist and is further marginalizing the large Muslim population. It had anti Muslims riots in Delhi in feb/March. India revoked Kashmir’s autonomy last year and locked it down shutting down telecommunications and the internet. A few more years of Modi and a progrom vs Muslims in that country is entirely possible

 

[Surrealistik]

And YOU make a good point as well. While I might like for poor people in China to be less poor for humanitarian reasons, if that includes strengthening tyranny by strengthening their government, we have another issue of how to deal with the authoritarianism of China's government becoming a more powerful world force. Good responses.

The notion that an economically liberalized and open China would result in less authoritarianism has been effectively and wholly debunked given the experience of nearly half a century from when it was floated. There can be no doubt at this point that if there is a path to democracy within China it simply does not lie within trade, and that doing business with China merely strengthens its intolerable and explicitly evil regime.

Personally I don't think it's realistic that we can decouple the American economy with China instantaneously, but we must endeavour to begin that decoupling in earnest and do business with almost literally anyone else, including investment in foreign infrastructure as necessary, and we should lead the rest of the world in doing the same.