Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Globalization Wolf?

There is much about the “anti-Globalization” hysteria that leaves me as frustrated as a parent trying to bear his teenaged child’s latest obsessive fad. It is so, as Theodore Dalrymple would say, “deeply shallow.” A strange alliance of opportunists and unfocused do-gooders stand opposed to what should be a natural thing -- willing, mutually consensual commerce across borders. There is no rational reason why this should be considered an innate evil, yet such is the trend that seduces so many of the fashionably indignant. But does this make any sense?

So much of this panting debate makes me suspect that this is at least in part a last gasp of a dying Marxism, desperate to stick it to the Capitalism that has consigned it to the septic tank of History. The bottom line of the anti-Globalization screed is the notion that the demon Globalization is “exploiting” the sad multitudes of the Third World by daring to plant a plant on their soil and hire its sons and daughters. To answer this I can with gratitude point to the recent articles of Professors Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, who document a most fascinating thing -- the jobs created by First World investment in the poor nations of the Earth pay at least twice the going salary of domestic work, and I suspect carry with them the more progressive baggage of First World traditions that will be of even greater benefit. It is a historical fact that the risen (and rising) Asian Tigers of our modern economy started (or are starting) as the scorned low wage purveyors of cheap shoddy products (I am old enough to remember what were even then lame and dated jokes about “cheap” Japanese goods). And the modern developing world is not blind to all this, even if their fashionable Plump World “benefactors” are. Please observe that many of the developing nations are reasonably open societies, yet the siren song of the anti-Globalization protesters has found no resonance within them. The answer why is obvious -- They know better.

For years it has been proclaimed both by First World protester and Third world victim that the Developed World was unjustly hamstringing the poor nations, doing what it could to stop their development beyond simple resource extraction, doing what could be done to stop their creation of a more sophisticated economy. That old accusation did ring true and still does. Who can forget the history of suffocating tariffs and quotas that were meant to freeze the Poor out of the marketplace of the Rich? Even today we have the continuation of that old disease in the form of the twisted agricultural policies of the Pampered World that both block imports of the agricultural products from the Poor, yet force feed the subsidized produce of First World farmers to the Poor. It is plain as day that a truly free market in global terms is the last best hope of the poor of the planet. Plain as day, except to a new race of trendy Illuminati, that is.

I did not make reference to the Asian Tigers lightly. They are surely the model for those wishing to rise out of poverty. In deepest essence, their ongoing success lay in opening themselves up to global investment and commerce. There were no overnight miracles. There can’t be. The slow, steady infusion of modest income for modest labour led to the creation of a more prosperous and educated populace, and a more developed infrastructure. That is the platform for sophisticated economic activity. For the nations that seize this golden ring, that means a boost into the realm of modern prosperity. And please note that that boost comes from more than just a fatter paycheck itself. This process breeds that wonderfully uppity and Western creature that is the working class/middle class hybrid. Nothing but Capitalist prosperity can create this creature, and nothing but being tapped into the global economy can foster local Capitalism on a sufficient scale.

Those who fret about “Globalization” try to justify sealing off the Developing World from the modern economy by raising concerns about “working conditions” or even “environmental concerns.” They forget that their own evolved market economies have been responsive to such issues, while their effete discredited rivals (primitivist Medievalism, Marxism) have failed miserably in this regard. A jolt of the best of the West, the inevitable benefit of “Globalization,” can only be a good thing. And never mind the glorious contagion of such things as free speech, women’s rights, rationalism, etc. But let’s not boast about this bonus too much -- that is worth many articles.

I would have more respect for the opponents of Globalization if they acknowledged the obvious benefits of Capitalism and free trade, while encouraging the Third World to improve its legal and general administrative infrastructure to make best use of this coming cornucopia. Perhaps the best of them do. There is certainly the model of the Meiji Restoration (please disregard that silly Tom Cruise film!) in the fashion that it sought out the best of Western advisors to help modernize their country. But the thrust of this opposition is not so positive or open-minded. Why?

In true doublethink fashion, the “anti-Globalists” simultaneously believe that free trade will really be the death knell for the First World worker. I recall a recent article by Walter Williams that refuted that fear brilliantly. Williams pointed out an example in one prominent sector -- telecommunications. Williams pointed out that since 1970 that industry “lost” eighty percent of its switchboard operators, while now handling ten times the number of long distance calls. As anyone should know, this was done through automation. Yet our society has not experienced any proportionate rise in poverty. The switchboard operators of old have largely either retired gracefully or moved to other pastures. Yet what if this same change had occurred through “outsourcing” to eager employees in the developing world? This would have raised far more hackles, and for shame for that! As Williams wrote, “The political difference is that it’s easier to organize resentment against India and China than against technology.” Very true, and how sad. It is easier to convince the Public not to be Luddite than it is to stop it from embracing bigotry. In truth, if all the changes in manufacturing over the last many decades had involved more “outsourcing” and less automation then the world of flesh and blood Humanity might have been better off. Yet the anti-Globalists still see their crusade to throttle trade as “humane.” Forgive them Lord, for they are clueless in what they do.

Look, I know that our mothers tried to teach us that we should never speak ill of others. In academic debate, that maternal advice is echoed in the admonition against the ad hominem attack. Well, I’m trying, but I can’t help but smell the rat of venomous old Marxist hostility in much of the Globalization hysteria (along with the hitchhiker of some cynical protectionist self interest, of course). The Free Market economy has already transformed the First World so much for the better, and there is no reason to see why it can’t do the same elsewhere. Is that what its opponents truly fear -- its continued success? It reminds me of the climax of the classic movie The Shape of Things to Come, when the renegade sculptor Theotocopulos leads a reactionary revolt against the coming moon flight, screaming to his opponents, “We hate you, and we will hate you even more if you succeed!”

I’m sorry, but in the end I just can’t find in my heart to shower this movement with awe and respect. It wishes to cut off the noses of others to spite others' faces, and calls it benevolence. It tries to scare us with the thought that some “coloured peril” of scab labour will gut our economy, saying this to us who have such an innate edge in infrastructure, resources, and mass education. Its world of choice is hypocrisy and foolishness set in concrete, one of pampered First Worlders thrilling to occasional flings of poverty tourism to the “unspoiled” vistas of Third World squalor. May every multi-ring pierced trendy protester hang their head in shame.

This article ignores the real danger from economic globalization: political globalization. As trade barriers come down, multinational corporations will have extra freedom to maneuver away from national regulatory apparatus. Those who think this will result in a new era of competitive deregulation are sadly mistaken. The political class isn't going to just sit by and let things go unregulated. Instead, they're going to demand - and get - international regulatory apparatus.

I mean, just look at the EU.

Corporate leaders, with allegience to no one nation - what is do difficult to understand? Globalism is a mental condition suffered by modernist, utopian, liberal managers, who have been brainwashed into thinking that "nationalism" is some sort of malady which affects solely rednecks and fascists. Just yesterday, an exec with which I am profoundly familiar, was bragging about how he is moving to Beijing. What ever happened to corporate leaders with truly conservative values, and who are pillars of the community? Today's ones don't know what a community is - their community is a virtual one, spanning the entire globe. Sick.

I was nodding my head in agreement with everything you said so didn't even notice your typo.

This outsourcing thing scares me to death.The more they outsource the less many Americans will have to spend and a large consumer base will be lost.

Do they care? Of course not,look at the consumer base in India and China.

Sad,isn't it? We are rapidly losing our middle class.

The more they outsource the less many Americans will have to spend and a large consumer base will be lost.

If you bothered to read the article in its entirety you would see that answer to that argument. There are not a finite number of jobs, contrary to what most people think.

The fact remains that the process is causing tremendous displacements in the here and now. The new high-paying jobs you speak of will take time to materialize. In the meantime, foreign governments - in countries where the distinction between the private and public sectors is a bit hazy, if you catch my drift - are going to gain further influence on our economic affairs, which could be very bad news for long-term stability - and ultimately for our sovereignty and freedom.

Ok, so how does the current situation pare with comparative advantage? Oh wait, Ricardo said that for free trade theory to work the factors of production would have to immobile.

When the factors of production are mobile then the nations with the greatest absolute advantage will benefit to the detriment of those nations which are wealthier. It is a known and proven fact that regions can have a decrease in standard of living because of an economic disadvantage. To suggest that regions can have a lower standard of living due to free trade and nations cannot is ludicrous.

The US and the West in general will experience a relative and real drop in standard of living... perhaps for the next 20 years or so. As social mobility is destroyed, the result will be polical and economic chaos.

I hate to say it but the only answer is protectionism.

What new, wealth-generating jobs can be created when the US is at an obvious absolute disadvantage? Now that all levels of wealth-creating jobs are completely mobile, those nations with the greatest absolute advantage will benefit to the detriment of other nations.

The result? A lowering of the standard of living in Western nations... maybe gradual, maybe rapid. But you will feel it. Have fun. :)

Williams pointed out that since 1970 that industry “lost” eighty percent of its switchboard operators, while now handling ten times the number of long distance calls. As anyone should know, this was done through automation.

Yes, automation brought about by R&D and investing in your company, which in turn produced growth. What investment in this country is there when you just ship jobs overseas as its cheaper to do work there?

Does Williams think that this automation just fell from the sky without Americans working on it?

telecommunications. Williams pointed out that since 1970 that industry “lost” eighty percent of its switchboard operators, while now handling ten times the number of long distance calls

VOIP will again force change on whats left of the Telco's but the real problem that Williams and these others refuse to face is unfair and predatory competition from such countries as France. What if the US government decided to aid our Telecommunications companies in ways which would gauranty technological leadership? Pay for R&D help out with Capital... What would China or Mexico do then?

I am so tired of these two dimensional arguments and the simpleton politicians which adhere to them.

It is no accident that the explosive rise of mutual funds coincided with the Clintonistas rise to power. Direct ownership of stocks meant stockholders could vote on the running of their companies. The mutual funds separated the owners of the means of production from their property by putting up a wall run by a socialist corporate class that maintains an incestuous relationship with each other. They have learned what Hitler and the Nazis as well as fascists understood. It is not the ownership of capital that counts, what counts is who controls it.

Devoid of any national loyalty with corporations being owned by transnational entities run by a transnational corporate class none of these companies feel they should be loyal to anyone but themselves.

It is an elite class which contributes large amounts of money to the political parties in their respective countries. Most western governments are already bought and paid for. No matter who is in power they will put forth policies to insure their growing control.

They delude themselves into thinking that they will always be in control. They are sorely mistaken, of such stuff revolutions and upheavals are made.

At some point, the anti Western powers will stop pretending to be going along with globalism and there will be war. It will be a slaughter, because the West will have pared military power down to low levels, and the West will be undermined economically and culturally by the globalist system. Therefore, I must conclude that the Westerners who are "elites" in this system are only pawns in the game. Once the objectives of taking the West's wealth and technology, and making the West supply-chain-dependent on anti Western states have been accomplished, the charade of global economism will be dropped by our enemies, and we'll be quickly reminded how nationalism, applied against us, is a potent force to reckon with. Thomas L. Friedman is a buffoon and a snake oil salesmen, and Francis Fukuyama is an infantile teller of tall tales. If it was not such a tragedy, it would be a joke.

Reading the entire article still does not help the problem. The notion that the jobs that are being lost will be replaced with better jobs apparently is not happening. Eventually, an equilibrium would be reached to stop outsourcing but at this point it will be too late.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.