If it's more efficient, as long as market forces outweigh "localist" forces, globalisation will continue down the gradient¹ to some minimum "energy state".
The amount of money involved means that to tip that balance, you need a very strong, coherent and stable localist sentiment. The complexity of the system and the willingness of individuals to attempt to wiggle though to the minimum means you need a very strong, durable and controlling government to keep the unstable system together in a way that persists for a very long time: at least many decades and beyond. This is tricky to do when countries that don't enforce localism probably will appear to advance more and faster, and especially tricky when you think that the very people who want localism the most also probably chafe the most at the idea of a more centrally-controlled economy.
It's certainly more than possible that in the long, long run, the localist countries are the tortoises and the globalist ones the hares, but it's a hard sell to the public during that period when neighbours have ample food and electricity and infrastructure and you don't because you're still working on DIYing the supply chains.
1: this is a changing gradient: you might find that where the minimum is changes over time. For example what was once Germany² became Japan, then Taiwan and now China. This will continue, probably via South and SE Asia to Africa.
2: "Made in Germany" was originally an involuntary mark of an inferior imported product into the UK. Relevant in this context, because circa the 1880s, Germany had strong protectionist policies and thus had governmentally-forced local, low-quality and cheap (to other countries) industrial capacity. A century later and it's a mark of pride, so the tortoise is, if not in the lead, not doing too badly! That Germany was wrecked in the interim by two World Wars on the trot makes it hard to extrapolate that success onto other countries going forwards from the present.
The amount of international trade isn't a good indicator for measuring globalization trends. Two bordering countries could be trading raw materials to produce domestic products for domestic consumption. Globalization is when you are highly likely to be able to consume the same product at 2 distant points on Earth.
"The vast complexity of modern production" is not the driving factor behind globalization, as demonstrated by American manufacturing systems in the 1960s and 1970s. If you have the necessary raw materials, energy supply and labor force then manufacturing can go on anywhere - all you need is the know-how.
The driving force behind globalization was the desire for cheap labor, the one component of the triangle that is most easily price-gamed. Of course, this doesn't affect trade between France and Germany, as moving a factory from one country to the other has no effect on production costs. In contrast, moving a factory from Detroit to Mexico, or to Indonesia, or to China? A 75% reduction in overall labor costs is all profit, minus shipping costs of course. Of course, it also drives down wages for those in the manufacturing sector while also shrinking that sector.
The other side of globalization with respect to labor is the import of cheap labor when it comes to non-outsourceable jobs like construction and agriculture, which again drives down the average wage in these industries (as migrants tend to work for less) - and this even extends to the tech sector, with the H1B Visa program being a point of contention. This also drives a political backlash with consequences (see migrant field workers fleeing Florida en masse at present, for example, as the state passes laws banning their employment).
Trying to write about globalization while ignoring the primary motivations and goals of the architects of globalization is kind of silly, and the main thesis - that modern manufacturing is just too complex to be done within the USA from start to finish - is just wrong.
Also more recently environmental regulations; afaik its not unusual to shift production to countries where environmental regulations, or their enforcement, is laxer to further cut costs. It helps that cheap labor tends to correlate with lax regulations.
If globalization was a person it would be the ultimate Jekyll and Hyde personality
There is what one might term the good, if not sublime, globalization. For as long as there are vast disparities in, e.g., life expectancy and educational level across the planet, our tribe lives a life out-of-balance (in the Koyaanisqatsi sense), unfair, unstable, miserly, antediluvian. Good globalization means flow of information, capital, people, goods that is (or should be) the great equilibrator, restoring balance.
The other face of globalization is decidedly darker. It consists of what one might term conscious ESG arbitrage. Effectively pursuing short-term extractive profits by identifying global opportunities to hide environmental externalities such as pollution, exploit inferior labor conditions and benefit from poor governance systems (oligarchs and the like). Bad globalization means sharply raising inequalities within a region while modestly lowering inequalities between regions.
If localization was a person it would be the ultimate Jekyll and Hyde personality
There is what one might term the good, if not sublime, localization. For as long as one region lives at the expense of others, slurping (ultimately by force) resources and human talent from across the planet our tribe lives a life out-of-balance (in the Koyaanisqatsi sense). The good side of localization means that, by-and-large, communities in all regions become adapted to and live in equilibrium within their own ecosystems.
The other face of localization is decidedly darker. It consists of what one might term Ideology arbitrage. Effectively pursue narrow-minded, isolationist policies and otherization, based on politics, religion or other discriminating factors in order to prop and persist a sub-optimal power structure arrangement.
The bottom line on globalization/localization is that they are sufficiently ill-defined that every political agenda can find something useful. Yet as the above juxtaposition hopefully illustrates, it does not take that much to start being more honest, less obfuscating, about what we are really talking about.
What is interesting is that everyone who opposes globalization for what it does in terms of labor market conveniently forgets that localizing also comes with a lot of darker things.
We want to manufacture iPhones on US soil entirely? Well, where are those factories going to be? What children will live in dangerous health conditions in perpetuity because of the pollution that will come with it? Where will all the waste go?
It’s barely racist. It’s just the double Standards everyone has. Every single one of us can pretend that we care about children mining Cobalt in Africa, but really, no one is willing to give up their iPhones or demand accountability. However if a factory was to be set up in our own backyards, every single one of us would be up in arms.
The comment wasn’t to say it is okay, it was to highlight that to enjoy a certain level of comfort in the modern world, we need to do some pretty bad things. And most people don’t even realize what they are until it hits their backyard.
Also, let me frame it this way, given that you’re not okay with pollution sufferings of people in China, would you be okay if the same factory was set up next to your house, given that even the most factories operating under safe standards still emit enough pollution to have long term effects on humans? Virtue signaling on the internet is easy, real world is hard.
I disagree. We can do without, but some "have not yet". And big biz is really good in exploiting that. I simply refuse to go with the fatalistic "we need to".
Hang on for a thought experiment...
Say we only tax "bad behavior" defined as: polluting, resource usage (land, water, etc.), resource hoarding (excessive wealth), products/services that are deemed unhealthy/immoral. And we do not tax good behavior: income from labor, having a house, buying healthy food, etc. If we do this fair and square (for persons and businesses alike) the market will find solutions. Currently the market's optimized towards bad behavior, and we are starting to see the results of that.
No they are not, but also most of the world is okay consuming the fruits of their labor. Let me frame it this way, given that you’re not okay with pollution sufferings of people in China, would you be okay if the same factory was set up next to your house, given that even the most factories operating under safe standards still emit enough pollution to have long term effects on humans?
There doesn't need to be any children or pollution involved. It does mean that the iPhone might be double the price, but that to me is the whole point of deglobalization: prevent capital from running around our labor and environment laws, and establish an equal global playing field.
One could argue it more moral to deal with those externalities within the wealthy nations than offloading them to poorer, less well-regulated economies.
Western nations pride themselves with achievements in environmental, labour and other industry regulations. Extending them further down the supply chain would maximize their positive effects.
Stupid article, but funny that the title gives a nod to Karl Marx's "history moves in a straight line" analysis. Liberals have been furiously criticizing this idea for 150 years.
Can you please not post shallow dismissals, please not call names, and please make your substantive points thoughtfully? A different version of your comment here could have explained your point neutrally and in detail—which I think could have been quite interesting and we could have learned something from. But this type of flamewar putdown just pours toxins into the environment.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Note this one: "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
Most of the predictions of the negative aspects of globalization from the 90s came true, specifically, about the hollowing out of working class jobs, the polarization that would result, and the erosion of western values to accomodate the despots we trade with. I was against globalization then because it was just a way for governments to collude with one another to dilute their accountability to their national constituents. Today, these governments literally import voters and distribute them throughout their country to prop up their political parties in contested areas because natural citizens don't vote for the looting and demolitions of their own societies.
Globalization just became "globalism," and remains a cynically anti-democratic and anti-nation state movement that is the expression of a totalitarian urge. It is not reversing, but its growth has taken a brief break. Its architects know it is going to cause conflict, and judging by what we saw of them in the first few rounds, I suspect they are only resting and organizing for the next phase.
>the erosion of western values to accomodate the despots we trade with
What do you mean by this?
> Today, these governments literally import voters and distribute them throughout their country to prop up their political parties in contested areas because natural citizens don't vote for the looting and demolitions of their own societies
Even glossing over the latent xenophobia in the commentary, let's just think if this makes any sense. You need to specifically allow immigrants in that will gote for you, they'll have to wait 5 or more years to become naturalized citizen and at the end... naturalized citizens typically vote at much lower rates than the native born.
Not a great plan. Much easier to suppress voters or kick out those that won't vote for you. See Jim Crow, or the expulsion of the Arab population of Israel before and after the 1948 war (without which Israel wouldn't even be viable as a Jewish state).
I would not say those are examples of western values being eroded, they seem more like examples of economic relationships between countries being detached from the values of their populaces. The values themselves in these cases are relatively unchanged.
Globalisation is one of the ideas where interests of both sides are aligned. The good ones want globalisation to get rid of nation-states: those war machines that only excel at oppressing peoples. The evil ones want globalization to build a planet-scale tyranny, a rule-based society that nobody can escape: such a tyranny can employ ways of oppression that aren't possible today, as it no longer needs to think about competition with other nations.
> Today, these governments literally import voters and distribute them throughout their country to prop up their political parties in contested areas because natural citizens don't vote for the looting and demolitions of their own societies.
> Today, these governments literally import voters and distribute them throughout their country to prop up their political parties in contested areas because natural citizens don't vote for the looting and demolitions of their own societies.
This can be read as a disguised racism and a conspiracy theory, unless you can provide data and evidence. Which governments and how/when/where/how many they "import" voters and get them vote for their policy ?
>This can be read as a disguised racism and a conspiracy theory, unless you can provide data and evidence. Which governments and how/when/where/how many they "import" voters and get them vote for their policy ?
I don't fully agree with the implied sentiment of the parent commenter, but as for real world examples just look at Russia and their puppet/occupied states and territories. Russia seems to conveniently import their citizens to other countries and cause looting/destruction/chaos/war using them as a pretext.
> Today, these governments literally import voters and distribute them throughout their country to prop up their political parties in contested areas because natural citizens don't vote for the looting and demolitions of their own societies.
That's sounds like nothing more than a poorly disguised attempt to attach Renaud Camus' White Replacement Theory [1] to the legitimate concerns about how globalization has hollowed out of the Western manufacturing base and the jobs it supported.
While I did not know someone has used related ideas in a very different and pre-existing agenda, I can't take hyperbolic accusations of racism seriously anymore. They aren't intellectually serious or sincere. I would be surprised if it were controversial at all that immigration is widely recognized as all of:
a) a policy tool.
b) an economic management tool.
c) a demographic management tool.
d) a populaiton management tool.
e) a strategic political tool.
In the cases of Mexico, Libya, and France/EU managing the flow of irregular immigration has historically been a diplomatic and geopolitical tool. The impetus behind the former US admins border wall was because the government of Mexico was using migrant caravans as a diplomatic negotiating lever. Libya's former dictatorship was tolerated by the west because it stabilized the region and limited African migration to Europe. Migrants have always been horribly exploited by their own governments and those of host countries, and using them as political tools is part of why.
In the case of Canada, regular and irregular immigration are not really distinguished (as to say someone is illegal is uncouth) and there is an explicit and public federal policy to settle people in rural regions, and in political ridings (districts) where the election margins to win a parliamentary seat are in the single digit thousands. Thinking that policy is cynical and unethical is not racist, and the accusation is a bad faith argument.
> While I did not know someone has used related ideas in a very different and pre-existing agenda, I can't take hyperbolic accusations of racism seriously anymore.
If you didn't know about it, then you haven't been paying attention. Replacement Theory has been promoted by ethno-nationalist media personalities like Tucker Carlson (who hosted the highest viewership cable news show), and also directly cited by recent perpetrator some of mass murder against immigrants and minorities (Tree of Life synagogue, El Paso Walmart, etc). Both are high visibility and high impact. Replacement theory is not at all obscure at this point.
What's to pay attention to, isolated conspiracy theorists elevated to the level of hate figures and the boring, neurotic, malice of ideologues? No, thanks.
Unless someone has become pathologically preoccupied with oppression and is inventing new places to find it, there is no reason for anyone to have heard of this obscure misfit, or his writing. There is a legitimate and serious conversation to be had about economics and policy, which includes immigration, and one railroaded by ideology is not it. I'd argue your internet weirdo has no place in this conversation other than as a straw man you brought into it.
> What's to pay attention to, isolated conspiracy theorists elevated to the level of hate figures and the boring, neurotic, malice of ideologues?
Replacement theory is routinely invoked to drive xenophobic policies and election outcomes in the world today. To dismiss that reality as "isolated" is gaslighting at it's finest.
I agree, but I don't see globalism as a recent phenomenon. In the United States the bourgeoisie has been importing labor since the countries inception, whether it was the slave trade, the railroads, the industrial revolution, or guest worker visas. They've been constantly shipping in folks and dividing the locales. Today their favorite tactic for dividing folks is using social shaming, i.e. calling you a xenophobic. You can see this manufactured in-fighting in this very thread. We need to call out this subversion, unite as labor, and fight the real enemy.
This is not news. Thomas Friedman expounded on this in writing about 2005.
There is no going "backwards" to continuing to find cheaper sources of labor, new markets, and greater availability of everything everywhere all at once. This has the long-term net effect of flattening all wages and prices globally.
Globalization is a protected "thing" by the US military.
The very design of the US military, especially the navy, has clearly indicated the US military will not be protecting this much longer. For China to continue shipping their junk to north america will take a huge increase in their naval power.
OP's graphs show clear stagnation since ~2009.
When Obama did his affordable care act, he found the USA was extremely dependent on Chinese pharma. He set the deglobalization trend going. Trump accelerated this into a trade war and Biden turned it into a cold war.
Where we are at now is that globalism is done; but the logistics systems aren't sure what to do. Container shipping is super cheap but the insurance and fuel costs are sky high so they are struggling to be profitable.
44 comments
[ 0.26 ms ] story [ 98.7 ms ] threadThe amount of money involved means that to tip that balance, you need a very strong, coherent and stable localist sentiment. The complexity of the system and the willingness of individuals to attempt to wiggle though to the minimum means you need a very strong, durable and controlling government to keep the unstable system together in a way that persists for a very long time: at least many decades and beyond. This is tricky to do when countries that don't enforce localism probably will appear to advance more and faster, and especially tricky when you think that the very people who want localism the most also probably chafe the most at the idea of a more centrally-controlled economy.
It's certainly more than possible that in the long, long run, the localist countries are the tortoises and the globalist ones the hares, but it's a hard sell to the public during that period when neighbours have ample food and electricity and infrastructure and you don't because you're still working on DIYing the supply chains.
1: this is a changing gradient: you might find that where the minimum is changes over time. For example what was once Germany² became Japan, then Taiwan and now China. This will continue, probably via South and SE Asia to Africa.
2: "Made in Germany" was originally an involuntary mark of an inferior imported product into the UK. Relevant in this context, because circa the 1880s, Germany had strong protectionist policies and thus had governmentally-forced local, low-quality and cheap (to other countries) industrial capacity. A century later and it's a mark of pride, so the tortoise is, if not in the lead, not doing too badly! That Germany was wrecked in the interim by two World Wars on the trot makes it hard to extrapolate that success onto other countries going forwards from the present.
The driving force behind globalization was the desire for cheap labor, the one component of the triangle that is most easily price-gamed. Of course, this doesn't affect trade between France and Germany, as moving a factory from one country to the other has no effect on production costs. In contrast, moving a factory from Detroit to Mexico, or to Indonesia, or to China? A 75% reduction in overall labor costs is all profit, minus shipping costs of course. Of course, it also drives down wages for those in the manufacturing sector while also shrinking that sector.
The other side of globalization with respect to labor is the import of cheap labor when it comes to non-outsourceable jobs like construction and agriculture, which again drives down the average wage in these industries (as migrants tend to work for less) - and this even extends to the tech sector, with the H1B Visa program being a point of contention. This also drives a political backlash with consequences (see migrant field workers fleeing Florida en masse at present, for example, as the state passes laws banning their employment).
Trying to write about globalization while ignoring the primary motivations and goals of the architects of globalization is kind of silly, and the main thesis - that modern manufacturing is just too complex to be done within the USA from start to finish - is just wrong.
There is what one might term the good, if not sublime, globalization. For as long as there are vast disparities in, e.g., life expectancy and educational level across the planet, our tribe lives a life out-of-balance (in the Koyaanisqatsi sense), unfair, unstable, miserly, antediluvian. Good globalization means flow of information, capital, people, goods that is (or should be) the great equilibrator, restoring balance.
The other face of globalization is decidedly darker. It consists of what one might term conscious ESG arbitrage. Effectively pursuing short-term extractive profits by identifying global opportunities to hide environmental externalities such as pollution, exploit inferior labor conditions and benefit from poor governance systems (oligarchs and the like). Bad globalization means sharply raising inequalities within a region while modestly lowering inequalities between regions.
If localization was a person it would be the ultimate Jekyll and Hyde personality
There is what one might term the good, if not sublime, localization. For as long as one region lives at the expense of others, slurping (ultimately by force) resources and human talent from across the planet our tribe lives a life out-of-balance (in the Koyaanisqatsi sense). The good side of localization means that, by-and-large, communities in all regions become adapted to and live in equilibrium within their own ecosystems.
The other face of localization is decidedly darker. It consists of what one might term Ideology arbitrage. Effectively pursue narrow-minded, isolationist policies and otherization, based on politics, religion or other discriminating factors in order to prop and persist a sub-optimal power structure arrangement.
The bottom line on globalization/localization is that they are sufficiently ill-defined that every political agenda can find something useful. Yet as the above juxtaposition hopefully illustrates, it does not take that much to start being more honest, less obfuscating, about what we are really talking about.
We want to manufacture iPhones on US soil entirely? Well, where are those factories going to be? What children will live in dangerous health conditions in perpetuity because of the pollution that will come with it? Where will all the waste go?
The comment wasn’t to say it is okay, it was to highlight that to enjoy a certain level of comfort in the modern world, we need to do some pretty bad things. And most people don’t even realize what they are until it hits their backyard.
Also, let me frame it this way, given that you’re not okay with pollution sufferings of people in China, would you be okay if the same factory was set up next to your house, given that even the most factories operating under safe standards still emit enough pollution to have long term effects on humans? Virtue signaling on the internet is easy, real world is hard.
I disagree. We can do without, but some "have not yet". And big biz is really good in exploiting that. I simply refuse to go with the fatalistic "we need to".
Hang on for a thought experiment... Say we only tax "bad behavior" defined as: polluting, resource usage (land, water, etc.), resource hoarding (excessive wealth), products/services that are deemed unhealthy/immoral. And we do not tax good behavior: income from labor, having a house, buying healthy food, etc. If we do this fair and square (for persons and businesses alike) the market will find solutions. Currently the market's optimized towards bad behavior, and we are starting to see the results of that.
Western nations pride themselves with achievements in environmental, labour and other industry regulations. Extending them further down the supply chain would maximize their positive effects.
When an American goes abroad to abuse children we round up a storm about the despicability of one person — and then throw them in prison.
When a global corporation does it, we roil in the injustice with various huffing and puffing, and then go on with our lives.
Sent from my iPhone (TM)
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Note this one: "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
Globalization just became "globalism," and remains a cynically anti-democratic and anti-nation state movement that is the expression of a totalitarian urge. It is not reversing, but its growth has taken a brief break. Its architects know it is going to cause conflict, and judging by what we saw of them in the first few rounds, I suspect they are only resting and organizing for the next phase.
What do you mean by this?
> Today, these governments literally import voters and distribute them throughout their country to prop up their political parties in contested areas because natural citizens don't vote for the looting and demolitions of their own societies
What governments are you referring to?
Even glossing over the latent xenophobia in the commentary, let's just think if this makes any sense. You need to specifically allow immigrants in that will gote for you, they'll have to wait 5 or more years to become naturalized citizen and at the end... naturalized citizens typically vote at much lower rates than the native born.
Not a great plan. Much easier to suppress voters or kick out those that won't vote for you. See Jim Crow, or the expulsion of the Arab population of Israel before and after the 1948 war (without which Israel wouldn't even be viable as a Jewish state).
Saudi Arabia, similar.
Is this America specific?
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/11/13/four-countries...
This can be read as a disguised racism and a conspiracy theory, unless you can provide data and evidence. Which governments and how/when/where/how many they "import" voters and get them vote for their policy ?
I don't fully agree with the implied sentiment of the parent commenter, but as for real world examples just look at Russia and their puppet/occupied states and territories. Russia seems to conveniently import their citizens to other countries and cause looting/destruction/chaos/war using them as a pretext.
Specific instances of this happening:
- Crimea in 2014
- Transnistria in 1992
- South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2008
That's sounds like nothing more than a poorly disguised attempt to attach Renaud Camus' White Replacement Theory [1] to the legitimate concerns about how globalization has hollowed out of the Western manufacturing base and the jobs it supported.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement
a) a policy tool. b) an economic management tool. c) a demographic management tool. d) a populaiton management tool. e) a strategic political tool.
In the cases of Mexico, Libya, and France/EU managing the flow of irregular immigration has historically been a diplomatic and geopolitical tool. The impetus behind the former US admins border wall was because the government of Mexico was using migrant caravans as a diplomatic negotiating lever. Libya's former dictatorship was tolerated by the west because it stabilized the region and limited African migration to Europe. Migrants have always been horribly exploited by their own governments and those of host countries, and using them as political tools is part of why.
In the case of Canada, regular and irregular immigration are not really distinguished (as to say someone is illegal is uncouth) and there is an explicit and public federal policy to settle people in rural regions, and in political ridings (districts) where the election margins to win a parliamentary seat are in the single digit thousands. Thinking that policy is cynical and unethical is not racist, and the accusation is a bad faith argument.
If you didn't know about it, then you haven't been paying attention. Replacement Theory has been promoted by ethno-nationalist media personalities like Tucker Carlson (who hosted the highest viewership cable news show), and also directly cited by recent perpetrator some of mass murder against immigrants and minorities (Tree of Life synagogue, El Paso Walmart, etc). Both are high visibility and high impact. Replacement theory is not at all obscure at this point.
Unless someone has become pathologically preoccupied with oppression and is inventing new places to find it, there is no reason for anyone to have heard of this obscure misfit, or his writing. There is a legitimate and serious conversation to be had about economics and policy, which includes immigration, and one railroaded by ideology is not it. I'd argue your internet weirdo has no place in this conversation other than as a straw man you brought into it.
Replacement theory is routinely invoked to drive xenophobic policies and election outcomes in the world today. To dismiss that reality as "isolated" is gaslighting at it's finest.
There is no going "backwards" to continuing to find cheaper sources of labor, new markets, and greater availability of everything everywhere all at once. This has the long-term net effect of flattening all wages and prices globally.
The very design of the US military, especially the navy, has clearly indicated the US military will not be protecting this much longer. For China to continue shipping their junk to north america will take a huge increase in their naval power.
OP's graphs show clear stagnation since ~2009.
When Obama did his affordable care act, he found the USA was extremely dependent on Chinese pharma. He set the deglobalization trend going. Trump accelerated this into a trade war and Biden turned it into a cold war.
Where we are at now is that globalism is done; but the logistics systems aren't sure what to do. Container shipping is super cheap but the insurance and fuel costs are sky high so they are struggling to be profitable.