IMO globalization is dangerous because it's putting all our eggs in one basket. We have it beyond good on the US compared to most places in the world.. And we still managed to have Trump, Hillary, and Biden be our presidential choices in these 2 elections. All it takes is one bad idea or leadership that takes the helm of an entire world government instead of several countries keeping each other in check and having different ideas/philosophies. I worry people actually want to be ruled by a king/monarch/dictator. I wish people would stop putting so much emphasis on the federal government and focus on local community politics. Higher level government should do less, not more.
Globalization promotes inter-dependence. That's all.
In a way, it's like chaining yourself to your trading partner. Now, you have to be very careful who you chain yourself to. Is it a stable democracy that shares your values, or is it some authoritarian hellhole with a tyrant and maniac in charge?
It's not only globalization though. It's mankind's inability to both understand and prioritize long term consequences and to govern the commons properly. The same thing manifests on local levels as well.
Living in a country where a global total war and several occupations of the most evil totalitarian regimes in history is still within living memory, and having been under an isolationist totalitarian power, comments like these make me shudder.
Globalization has some problems. The benefits so far have massively outweighed them, especially if you take the long view. How about we try to fix those faults, instead of retreating and isolating?
I have a growing feeling that the dream of globalization is becoming a nightmare: shortage of natural resources, the difference in buy-power, the rize of global monopolies that are unstoppable... it's creating a greater gap and establishing even greater power dynamics.
I don't discard the benefits as well, like economic growth, ease of travel, etc... but I start to wonder if it's balanced at all.
i don't think inequality can be solved by globalization. if you look at the poor countries, you'll find a multitude of structural problems. until these structural problems are dealt with, globalization is likely to feed corruption.
i agree that globalization would reduce the risk of global conflict - there would only be one side. thus, if the wrong people were in power there would be no way to fight them. that's scary.
Globalization means there's a race to the bottom to see what country can make things the cheapest. It means labor laws and expecting good treatment of employees makes a country uncompetitive, and makes local income equality nearly impossible.
Granted, it is also the world's most powerful method of wealth creation, but that doesn't mean much when the people without capital don't see the rewards.
To those who disagree with me( because I'm sure there will be many), why am I wrong?
Your first sentence of your last paragraph shows one of the problems with globalization. We have seen in the U.S. municipalities competing with each other to see who can give the most subsidies to large corporations. The effects have not been so desirable. Now we are seeing this played out on a grand, global scale. It's potentially a race to the bottom.
I think globalization without a proper international regulating agency is a bad thing. It's great for the people who have the ability to move from one country to the next. Who can find the optimal place for them to live in. Most people don't have this luxury.
Corruption, wars, elected officials who are criminals, illegal immigration, rampant graft, force feeding of political correctness, companies who throw away workers because globalization is "a good thing", and many many more.......
The problem is not really globalization, the problem is reliance on china, Russia, the saudis, etc for critical parts of the economy. That reliance was made possible by globalization, but the reason to reduce reliance on them is not because of increased efficiency but increased security and independence.
Globalizing democracy means that increasingly , half of the population of the earth will be oppressed by the other half. At least the division of nations leaves people with the option to leave one democracy and go live in another that fits them better. We can't leave earth for something else yet. Global democracy controlled by global media is a bad outcome.
Globalization is only the symptom, and IMO it's a good thing. You don't want to fight globalization, you want to fight income inequality and bunches of other things. But ultimately, what you need to do is beyond the norm of Capitalism.
Globalization is and always was a race to the bottom for everyone but the owners. In my opinion, the idea has always been outsource work to other countries to bootstrap their economies into the modern era so whatever work we didn't outsource could benefit from additional customers.
I think Globalization went a bit too far and left too many American cities in the dust while catapulting strategic competitors into a powerful position. The idea that millions of workers who lost their jobs could just immediately retool and find work higher up the value chain was a disaster. Many argue that Globalization has been a success for lifting millions out of poverty, but to me that just says we ruined some peoples livelihood for the benefit of other countries who seek to simply replace the need for us instead of trade with us.
I think it's too narrow to talk about it as simply "globalization". Globalization has done some really great things, like lifting millions of people out of poverty. But the US has also failed to keep itself competitive with China, and China has (unfairly, IMO, but I'm of course biased) taken advantage of the US's IP and talent (among other things) in order to increase their global influence and gain leverage over the countries that used to be economically "superior" to China.
I think ideology plays a part in why this is "bad", as well. As an American, I wouldn't mind so much if the next growing superpower believed in democratic principles. As much as I'm happy I was born in and grew up in the US, I wouldn't see a problem with a "better US" growing beyond the US in terms of economic and political power. But I'm not particularly comfortable with the idea of an authoritarian country in that position; China already constantly uses its political clout to censor US citizens and businesses, for example. I expect China's power over citizens of other countries, people who will never even set foot in China, to increase over time, and that worries me quite a bit. It often feels like our only hope is that China makes some huge strategic mistakes, or succumbs to unfixable/unknown structural issues.
reply