Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Globalization Wolf?

Intellectual Conservative ^ | 05 February 2004 | Julius Wroblewski

[hawk1]

Being at the top there is a long ride down. Cspan had a discussion on free trade discussing how mobile vs immobile factors influence the market. It was not an upbeat forecast.
Someone mentioned an equilibrium point and things would level off but at this point the damage had been done.

[Schattie]

I saw the same program. :)

Well... I could be wrong, but personally I'm going to prepare for a lowered standard of living and especially look for a job that cannot be outsourced. As those wealth-producing jobs get outsourced those that used to be employed in those fields will be looking in other fields, putting downward pressure on those fields. So it isn't like bits and peices of the economy will escape this trend. *All* fields will suffer.

In the end it's just materiel goods I guess... I can survive a lowered standard of living (however unhappily). I'm relatively young and have no debts (the latter is one I've been careful not to get in trouble with). Those in my generation may be in for a rude awakening. Who knows, maybe it's all for the better. The middle-aged and older will have a terrible time adjusting methinks.

Politically this will no-doubt mean a leftward turn as people's living standards slowly erode. As more and more wealth is redistributed from the top to the bottom, it will only encourage companies to leave American shores in droves.

And basically there's not much we can do about it. As long as free trade remains a dominant ideology among lib*s and most conservatives then things will get worse, a whole lot worse, before they get better.

I could be wrong. Maybe there is someway that we can create a significant amount of wealth generating jobs in those countries that are at an absolute disadvantage that I don't see. I doubt it, though.

I hope I'm wrong.

[sauropod]

read later

[NRA2BFree]

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.

You are exactly right. :) I couldn't have said it any better.

[hawk1]

The issue has gotten bigger because of the ever widening of this trend. Politicians will not be able to ignore their constituents. Congress has had some hearings on mfg and technology outsourcing. They are aware of the concerns of the voters. Whatever comes out of this remains to be seen.

[lasereye]

It is a known and proven fact that regions can have a decrease in standard of living because of an economic disadvantage.

When you say regions, you mean a particular state or what? What's an example? Also, what exactly do you mean by "economic disadvantage"? Countries have had their economies deteriorate dramatically from socialism/bloated governement that gradually strangled the economy. That was clearly an "economic disadvantage", but it was one that had nothing to do with free trade.

[lasereye]

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.

I don't think that's at all clear. You have to remember we're coming out of a recession, which resulted to some degree from the excesses of the late 90's and resulting tech bust. These things always seem worse after a period of economic sluggishness. It sounds like you're attributing all job losses to free trade. I think most of it is not.

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.

It seems to me the opposite might be happening, in terms of who is influencing who, but I don't have a crystal ball on that.

[Schattie]

Do you know what comparative and absolute advantage are?

[inquest]

It sounds like you're attributing all job losses to free trade.

No, but there are job losses that are attributed to it. When a manufacturing plant closes and moves its operations to Thailand, it leaves a large number of people out of work. Those people aren't going to have other high paying jobs waiting for them that have been created by free trade, even in relatively good economic times. It creates a major displacement. Multiply that effect by thousands of examples and you have some considerable economic instability for a good period of time.

It seems to me the opposite might be happening, in terms of who is influencing who, but I don't have a crystal ball on that.

I'm not sure how that would be. In a situation where country A has a trade deficit with country B, B would have the advantage over A. B has the production infrastructure, so it can supply itself if need be. But A is dependent on B. Hence B can manipulate A.

[Paul Ross]

Instead, they're going to demand - and get - international regulatory apparatus. I mean, just look at the EU.

Common-Sense Bump!

[Schattie]

The EU? How about the WTO, IMF, UN, and all the rest?

The UN is an annoying, meddling, socialist dominated internationalist organization... how long do you think it'll take the WTO to be the same? I just can't believe that no right wingers were upset when our president took his orders from the WTO this winter... that is just so disturbing. Kinda like in Superman 2 when the president kneels before General Zod.

I dunno... why should I care I guess?

[Paul Ross]

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

Actually, she mistates the issue, and turns it on its head. The REAL Karl Marx and his fellow-travelling Marxists LOVE Free Trade and Globalization, and encourage it as he did in 1848:

"But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade."

[lasereye]

No, but there are job losses that are attributed to it. When a manufacturing plant closes and moves its operations to Thailand, it leaves a large number of people out of work. Those people aren't going to have other high paying jobs waiting for them that have been created by free trade, even in relatively good economic times.

I don't know that history shows that at all, at least not in the long run. We've been building factories overseas for quite some time, and statistics show that prosperity has increased over that time. According to a column by Alan Reynolds in Investors Business Daily, the lower and upper limits of the middle three fifths of families increased from $20,262-$64,241 in 1975 to $$24,000-$94,150 in 2001 in constant 2001 dollars. So something must have been created over those years. I just don't buy into this idea that all the good jobs have been disappearing. It may be true that high paying jobs for people with low skills are less plentiful than they used to be.

I'm not sure how that would be. In a situation where country A has a trade deficit with country B, B would have the advantage over A. B has the production infrastructure, so it can supply itself if need be. But A is dependent on B. Hence B can manipulate A.

If those factories would shut down if they lost A as their customer, I would say A has a lot of leverage over B.

[inquest]

I don't know that history shows that at all, at least not in the long run.

I was referring to the immediate aftermath, especially of such a huge transfer of production abroad as we're experiencing now. Regardless of what things look like once the dust settles, there's an interval where things can get rather unstable.

If those factories would shut down if they lost A as their customer, I would say A has a lot of leverage over B.

If "trade" (I use the term loosely) were to be interrupted between A and B, A would lose goods that it had been dependent on, whereas B would lose money - money that had already been accumulating for some time up till then. I'd say that in such a situation, A would lose out worse than B. This could be especially serious if it happens at some critical juncture for A, such as a war.

Furthermore, in many of the B's out there, corporations are practically agencies of the government, whereas in A, the customers are almost completely atomized - as independent of each other as they are of the government. This situation gives B's government an ability to exercise more subtle manipulation of A's economy. All this while A's economy is still trying to readjust from the aftereffects of massive job displacement.

[William Terrell]

Global commerce has to be regulated by global agencies with global powers. Who thinks it can stop there?

It has to grow into a world government over social and cultural sectors, they being so integrated with an economy to support them.

The central question, in my mind, is what kind of law must be used? Surely not the English or American common law, not Islamic law nor any other law of any specific people or homeland.

And what would be the character of that law, people versus the rulers and regulators?

[Ciexyz]

Food for thought.

[lasereye]

Do you know what comparative and absolute advantage are?

I know what comparative advantage is. I'm not familiar with the term "absolute advantage". Why don't you explain it and the connection with free trade.

[Schattie]

What I mean is that as opposed to comparative advantage, where even if a country produces all things better than another country, it still picks only one thing... with factor of production mobility then if a nation produces all things better then all things are produced in that nation. The trick is finding something we produce better I suppose.

[Quix]

ARTICLE AUTHOR: 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?

Evidently the author considers himself more knowledgeable than ALMIGHTY GOD

who warns that the global government taking over after Israel becomes a Nation again in a day--after the dispersion in 70AD . . . will be led by satan and lead to a worse time on earth than ever before or in the future.

I suppose if one is desperate to experience hell on earth, one should work for the global government.