Overall, has the trend of globalization been a net positive or negative for the

[Human]

Net positive, certainly.

[DavidB.]

(((globalization)))

[RFayette]

Overall net positive for most of the world, but has been a rough ride for the middle class in the USA and Western Europe.  I'm not sure what the counterfactual would look like, so I probably won't say net negative for sure, but it's not looking great.

[Goldwater]

Net positive, certainly.

[RINO Tom]

Net positive, certainly.

[dead0man]

(((globalization)))

I see what you did there

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Overall net positive for most of the world, but has been a rough ride for the middle class in the USA and Western Europe.

[This account no longer in use.]

(((globalization)))

I see what you did there

I don't get it

[President Johnson]

Very mixed. Both.

[VPH]

Very mixed. Both.

[Indy Texas]

For the US economy as a whole, it's indisputably been a positive thing.

That doesn't mean it has been positive for every American.

[Clark Kent]

Net positive, certainly.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

An unfairly maligned force that has helped America, the West, their middle-classes, and brought many out of poverty throughout the world.

[Human]

(((globalization)))

I see what you did there

I don't get it

It's an anti-Semitic thing. Neo-Nazis/alt-right types put parentheses around words to say that something is secretly Jewish controlled.

Common uses are when anti-Semites/racists talk about (((bankers))) or (((politicians))).

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

An unfairly maligned force that has helped America, the West, their middle-classes, and brought many out of poverty throughout the world.

Oh come on. Very few forces are that across-the-board wonderful.

[This account no longer in use.]

(((globalization)))

I see what you did there

I don't get it

It's an anti-Semitic thing. Neo-Nazis/alt-right types put parentheses around words to say that something is secretly Jewish controlled.

Common uses are when anti-Semites/racists talk about (((bankers))) or (((politicians))).

So it's basically a dogwhistle, except not even subtle. Got it.

[Santander]

(((globalization)))

I see what you did there

I don't get it

It's an anti-Semitic thing. Neo-Nazis/alt-right types put parentheses around words to say that something is secretly Jewish controlled.

Common uses are when anti-Semites/racists talk about (((bankers))) or (((politicians))).

So it's basically a dogwhistle, except not even subtle. Got it.

They call it "closed-captioning for the Jew-blind."

[Beet]

Somewhat of a net positive, but well known problems due in large part to the fact that it doesn't work the way it's "supposed" to.

When wealthy (developed countries, in our case) and poor areas (developing countries) join together in a single market (globalization), the starting premise should ideally be that the operative difference is that developed countries are capital-rich whereas developing countries are capital-poor. This is just an extension of the most common sense instinct that to be rich means having more stuff. However, the return on capital from a low base is generally higher than the return from a high base: therefore, the kickoff point of globalization should be capital migration from developed countries with low returns on capital to developing countries with high returns. The owners of capital thus he higher returns, whereas people in poor countries get needed capital. In the meantime, poor countries use their capital to purchase things from rich countries; material which is then used to develop their own productive capacity. Hence, workers in rich countries benefit as well since their countries are running current account surpluses (but capital account deficits). Everyone benefits and things are in balance.

The problem with globalization in practice is that it doesn't work this way. Due to floating currency regime, capital cannot safely migrate from developed countries to developing countries; I never know what when the Developistan peso will suddenly depreciate and its entire financial system will melt down, in which case I lose my investment. The Developistan authorities are also naturally paranoid about this, since financial crises also lead to political turmoil. Hence, instead of capital flowing from rich to poor, it goes the other way- perverse! Developistan builds up huge foreign reserves of dollars, euros, yen, and other "safe" currencies to protect its own financial stability. It can only do this by earning them through net exports, maybe putting them in a sovereign wealth fund, and then ploughing them back into debt instruments of developed countries. The capital-gluttons developed countries are then so bloated with excess capital that interest rates fall to zero, debt levels skyrocket, and asset prices continuously rise. Money that in a healthy world economy would go towards building up Africa instead goes into the Dow Jones or speculative gold or mortgage-backed securities. Meanwhile workers in rich countries are screwed because the poor counties' net export policies cannibalize their own labor and "factories move overseas."

If only the world had followed Keynes' original ideas for the postwar order, of fixed currencies backed by a much stronger IMF/World Bank, the global economy would have worked much better.

[DavidB.]

An unfairly maligned force that has helped America, the West, their middle-classes, and brought many out of poverty throughout the world.

I basically agree with this, which is why I think of it as a net positive, but it has also exacerbated inequality in many societies and led to the Americanization/McDonaldization of popular culture worldwide. I would argue that the negatives of globalization are much more felt outside the first world than within it, though the non-economic downsides of it are underestimated in the first world too. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

Net positive. All the problems created by economic globalization could very easily be solved with political globalization.

Overall net positive for most of the world, but has been a rough ride for the middle class in the USA and Western Europe.

I certainly wouldn't say the Western middle class, of all groups, has been its greatest victim. The "prize" probably goes to the vast majority of residents of States who are too poor, too weak or too small to defend themselves from food speculation and environmental depredation.

[ElectionsGuy]

Net positive, certainly.

[pho]

That depends on what your metrics are. If you believe that cheaper consumer goods go farther for unskilled workers than high paying jobs, you probably think globalization is a great thing.

If you work at a Walmart for 8.00$/hr because your lawn mowing service was priced out of business by illegal immigrants, you probably don't care how cheap Chinese floor lamps are.

My sympathies are with the latter group, but it would be dishonest to pretend like globalization hasn't made my life easier.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

An unfairly maligned force that has helped America, the West, their middle-classes, and brought many out of poverty throughout the world.

Oh come on. Very few forces are that across-the-board wonderful.

Well obviously, but that doesn't stop the fact that it is blamed for what is in fact a crisis of automation.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

An unfairly maligned force that has helped America, the West, their middle-classes, and brought many out of poverty throughout the world.

Oh come on. Very few forces are that across-the-board wonderful.

Well obviously, but that doesn't stop the fact that it is blamed for what is in fact a crisis of automation.

That's....actually a really good observation.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Bumping because I finally remembered this somewhat disingenuous but still immensely fun quote from the classic early-nineties cyberpunk novel Snow Crash:

You must be logged in to read this quote.