Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Is globalization good or bad?
Globalization is good 24 47.06%
Globalization is bad 27 52.94%
Voters: 51. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-18-2022, 12:25 AM
 
Location: Taipei
8,864 posts, read 8,442,533 times
Reputation: 7414

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck_Mulligan View Post
Without globalization China would not have been able to lift the most millions of people in the shortest time out of poverty.
Which is a mistake. They should have stayed poor and weak.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-18-2022, 04:47 AM
 
5,743 posts, read 3,598,707 times
Reputation: 8905
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133 View Post
The current definition of globalization is a bad thing. Its America giving up its competitive edge to enrich international bankers, and the third world.
US has forced every country into treaties that benefit the US. Americans can no longer have secret accounts offshore. like Switz, Cayman, all have to be reported to US, who has the power to freeze any account on earth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2022, 08:15 AM
 
Location: Taos NM
5,353 posts, read 5,129,553 times
Reputation: 6771
We are too globalized. That is not to say there should be no globalization, but there should be less than there is currently. A lot of trade isn't competitive advantage, it's free riding, here's why:

1. Regulation dodging. A lot of manufacturing isn't cost effective in developed countries, because developed countries have environmental protections or safety regulations that developing countries don't have. In this sense, developing countries don't have a competitive advantage, they are just a method to skirt around best practice. If your product can't be made with the regulations we've set, then it shouldn't be made, that simple.

2. Single sourcing. Economies of scale are great and reduce costs by producing everything in a few facilities, until those facilities go down. As the last 2 years have shown, there's more headaches and cost problems with supply chain when the one facility that makes X goes down than if there had been 3 less efficient facilities and of them could have been kept online. If there were a more diverse set of countries making semi conductors, our supply chain issues would be less of a deal.

3. Political stickiness. If a country (like Russia) is a key supplier of a critical resource, this presents all sorts problems where politics can create economic issues and vice versa. If countries were more self sufficient, there would be less sabre rattling all around, there's less leverage that one country has over another.

So, what should we move to instead? I believe continentalism is a good mix between the 2, where there's a lot of trade between North American countries or East Asian countries, but less trade between East Asia and North America.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2022, 08:33 AM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
25,568 posts, read 17,275,200 times
Reputation: 37290
It WAS a good thing for a long time - since WW2.
Globalization enabled the building of economies that had been destroyed by the war. Without the development of globalization, agricultural and energy resources may not have been available in every country.


Peter Zeihan, author of "The Accidental Superpower" believes it is all coming to an end with the passing of the Boomer generation and all their money. America has the resources to function fairly well, but almost no other country has everything they need. That, Zeihan says, is the basis for wars and armed conflict, which will become more numerous everywhere except America.
As global population declines, the world will become more chaotic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2022, 11:41 AM
 
Location: Seattle
5,117 posts, read 2,161,650 times
Reputation: 6228
In principal, globalization is a good thing. In reality? It puts WAY TOO MUCH power in the hands of just a few of the world's wealthiest families. They already have enough power and control as it is. So the big question is this. Once we reach full globalization and borders are deemphasized, who gets to play King or Queen?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2022, 12:05 PM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
25,568 posts, read 17,275,200 times
Reputation: 37290
Quote:
Originally Posted by pete98146 View Post
In principal, globalization is a good thing. In reality? It puts WAY TOO MUCH power in the hands of just a few of the world's wealthiest families. They already have enough power and control as it is. So the big question is this. Once we reach full globalization and borders are deemphasized, who gets to play King or Queen?
I believe it will be "No One".
Borders will not be de-emphasized. They will be constantly challenged as countries with scarce resources attack their neighbor in an effort to take his resources. That's the way it was throughout history until post WW2.

In a future not far off food and energy struggles will again dominate the world, except for America where we (1) have plenty of everything and (2) remain safely behind a moat many, many hundreds of miles wide.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2022, 12:45 PM
 
9,086 posts, read 6,311,647 times
Reputation: 12322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P View Post
We are too globalized. That is not to say there should be no globalization, but there should be less than there is currently. A lot of trade isn't competitive advantage, it's free riding, here's why:

1. Regulation dodging. A lot of manufacturing isn't cost effective in developed countries, because developed countries have environmental protections or safety regulations that developing countries don't have. In this sense, developing countries don't have a competitive advantage, they are just a method to skirt around best practice. If your product can't be made with the regulations we've set, then it shouldn't be made, that simple.

2. Single sourcing. Economies of scale are great and reduce costs by producing everything in a few facilities, until those facilities go down. As the last 2 years have shown, there's more headaches and cost problems with supply chain when the one facility that makes X goes down than if there had been 3 less efficient facilities and of them could have been kept online. If there were a more diverse set of countries making semi conductors, our supply chain issues would be less of a deal.

3. Political stickiness. If a country (like Russia) is a key supplier of a critical resource, this presents all sorts problems where politics can create economic issues and vice versa. If countries were more self sufficient, there would be less sabre rattling all around, there's less leverage that one country has over another.

So, what should we move to instead? I believe continentalism is a good mix between the 2, where there's a lot of trade between North American countries or East Asian countries, but less trade between East Asia and North America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pete98146 View Post
In principal, globalization is a good thing. In reality? It puts WAY TOO MUCH power in the hands of just a few of the world's wealthiest families. They already have enough power and control as it is. So the big question is this. Once we reach full globalization and borders are deemphasized, who gets to play King or Queen?
I voted for 'globalization as bad' in the poll for many of the same reasons articulated in these posts I quoted. If manufacturing and processing was evenly distributed at a local level across the globe and every country contributed to trade based on their physical, environmental and human capital strengths then I would consider globalization to be a good thing, but that is not even close to how it evolved. Instead the global elites manipulated the world into making China the primary manufacturer and we have instances where raw materials are shipped across the globe to China to be manufactured and then shipped back out across the globe and that is highly ineffecient, incredibly wasteful from a resource utilization perspective and environmentally destructive. The current implementation of globalization is pretty close to a failure as the supply chains nearly broke under COVID conditions. I really like that proposed idea of continentalism.

Last edited by AtkinsonDan; 05-18-2022 at 12:55 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2022, 10:23 PM
 
17,874 posts, read 15,939,379 times
Reputation: 11660
Countries can build their economies in isolation. Until the point they offer something other developed countries really desire, and can become equal partners in business, and not essentially a welfare state that steals the jobs/opportunities of the developed nations
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2022, 05:41 PM
 
1,216 posts, read 511,924 times
Reputation: 1448
“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

David Jr. Also why they gave British Intelligence 2 free floors of office space at 30 Rock so that could embark on a campaign to convince Americans that fighting in Europe in WWll was good. And getting dirt on Senators to blackmail them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2022, 01:56 AM
 
Location: rural south west UK
5,407 posts, read 3,600,460 times
Reputation: 6649
I've always thought globalisation was a bad thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top