Making more stuff in the countries with the cheapest costs also means that people in those countries are being lifted out of poverty. China's GDP per capita went from ~350USD in 1990 to 12.500USD in 2023 and similar growth happened for India, Bangladesh and lots of other poorer countries. Globalization brought affordable goods to wealthy nations and better living standards to poorer nations. In addition, closer trade ties lower the likelihood of armed conflict.
Smart wealthy countries understand these benefits and move their own economies to higher value creating activities like deep research, high tech development or financial services. Less smart wealthy countries try to erect trade barriers to force a return of uncompetitive manufacturing...
> closer trade ties lower the likelihood of armed conflict
This was 100% what Europe believed and the Merkel administration in Germany more than anyone. Not to bring politics into HN intentionally, but I think the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and threats of invading Poland, Finland, and Germany from Russian spokesmen or MPs kind of throws cold water on this theory.
No matter how well meaning you are, you can't expect dictators and "strong men" to ever act in anything but bad faith. It is time the west realizes this and acts accordingly. As an American, I'm sad to see the "de-americaning" happening due to those here who elected a bad administration, but I can't say it is surprising. Ultimately, a less weak and less dependent on the US Europe is a net good for the world. Europe collectively being able to put a check on the US forces the US to not do stupid things, so this is good long term.
I agree with what you're saying, but lowering the risk does not mean completely eliminating the problem. It's always hard to argue the counterfactual, but I feel the number of conflicts since 1990 that HAVEN'T happened due to countries being economically dependent on each other is significant.
Note that I said specifically dictators, and most of Europe isn’t that. The closest would be Orban and maybe Erdogan. But Hungary is seemingly a disliked minor player. Turkey is actually interesting in that Erdogan is a strong man and he’s actually really good at it seemingly. He’s also got a very modern and well trained military.
The US also isn't a dictatorship yet and certainly wasn't when we started becoming so dependent on them.
You can try avoiding dealings with any autocracies, but that's really hard given our modern world and it's not like other democracies can never screw you over. I think it's more realistic to demand that we diversify our imports so that we can react to things like Russia's Ukraine invasion better.
This reasoning completely ignores NATO essentially trampling over red lines established with Russia in the past, doing a soft coup in Ukraine in 2011 and reverting their stance on Ukraine joining NATO.
NATO is the reason Russia attacked, not because "Germany was soft". Over-reliance on an external parter for a strategic economic input (cheap gas) was also a huge mis-step (all while shutting down self-reliant nuclear plants), but doesn't really dispute the "closer trade lowers likelihood of conflict" argument.
Or put in another way, Ukraine can't be free and get a shot at democracy because imperialistic Russia deems it its sphere of influence.
And no amount of denouncing US hypocrisy in defending democracy will make me change my mind. Two wrongs doesn't make a right and if it happens that Pax Americana allows a country to take a more democratic route, then let it happen.
Or as some Ukrainian said :
"We are not Russian doorstep, we are free, independent Ukraine. F** you"
Sorry, could you elaborate on "Meanwhile people in the West are being dropped into poverty."?
As for " lowering the risk of armed conflict - how's that working out for everyone?" - pretty well, thank you. Deaths in armed conflicts have massively decreased since the 1980s with most of them originating from local wars in Africa prior to 2022. (see https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace) - the Ukraine conflict is a return of exactly the kind of imperialist expansion that we've seen in the leadup to World War 1 which happens when isolated countries with territorial ambitions seek to expand.
I'm curious - in 2021, the top 1% earned 26% of all income in the united states. What % of total contribution to the country's federal income tax would you consider fair?
I’m all for poorer countries getting a slice of the pie. Long term I’m not convinced it’s beneficial for the whole population of richer countries to continue, but rather only the elites of those countries. The amount income inequality has skyrocketed in recent decades sort of undermines the theoretical benefits economists love to tout.
Nowadays manufacturing does not have to be uncompetitive. Advances in automation balance out wage disparities. They also provide more chances for a country to retain its skilled workers. Unions in developed nations can help the systematic power imbalance between capitalists and workers.
It's especially beneficial for the poorest people in the developed nation. In the 1940 US, the poorest 20% spent almost their entire income on basic needs, such as food and basic clothing. Today, the poorest 20% can still afford smartphones and flat screen TVs, clothes and even vacations. Yes, globalization has massively increased market sizes, making the richest much richer. But it also made the poorest much richer.
> Today, the poorest 20% can still afford smartphones and flat screen TVs, clothes and even vacations.
Well 1940’s being a wartime era would be a bad time to compare to. It’d be best to compare to compare to just before globalization, probably 1960’s, 70’s, or even early 80’s.
Smartphones and flatscreen TVs aren’t necessities. Sure it’s great they’re cheap but they’d be cheap anyway. Only a fairly small fraction of manufacturing costs are due to labor based on leaked iPhone costs I’ve seen that were like 10’s of dollars.
At the same time housing costs have increased massively in the last 2 decades. Worker wages in most fields have not kept apace productivity gains. It’s worse in affluent areas where “free” money has skyrocketed housing prices. Perhaps it’s not related to globalization but it seems partly due to it.
Smart wealthy countries understand these benefits and move their own economies to higher value creating activities like deep research, high tech development or financial services. Less smart wealthy countries try to erect trade barriers to force a return of uncompetitive manufacturing...