Local food is one thing—it seems absurd to ship a cucumber thousands of miles when I can just grow some in my garden. But a global society is absolutely essential to the continued well-being of our species. Globalisation is a powerful force against misinformation and propaganda—and in turn xenophobia and war.
And our global transportation infrastructure isn’t perfect, but it is the best it’s ever been in all of human history. So I would argue that buying locally is far less important than, say, buying handcrafted goods from small businesses, regardless of location.
Buying things from far away is the point of living in a modern, global economy. You don't get people on your side by telling them they want the wrong things. The way forward is to give people what they want in a sustainable way.
If someone's feet hurt, you don't tell them to lie down for the rest of their lives. You tell them to get better shoes.
Actually, I think that localized thinking has benefits that are so much better than the status quo of globalization that that 99% the issues you describe would be vacated.
Like let's talk about food, how we get bananas from across the globe. Who the hell needs bananas when you can buy fresh, seasonal fruit from the farmer an hour away? Yeah you might not get to have banana cream pie for Christmas, but you made a new friend (the farmer) had a good time (with your family at the peach orchard) and ate something that didn't need to be coated in poison to survive a f'ing trip through the Panama Canal! (I know I'm pulling this out of my ass – but you get the gist)
Yes, but you don’t need to live in a city of 8 million people to participate in the global economy anymore.
Globalism has made it easier to do global business in much of the US, logistics, transportation, and communication have changed dramatically since then.
People take for granted the fact that you can pop into any small town grocery store and find a vegetable grown in another country. That’s a relatively recent possibility.
But there’s also many cities of 100-300k residents with plenty of affordable housing and Fortune 500 offices.
I don't understand why globalism rarely, if ever, factors into the debate. It boggles my mind that if I walk down to the drug store to buy a toothbrush that toothbrush was likely made in a Chinese factory, shipped across the Pacific ocean in a diesel-spewing container ship, and then driven a good thousand miles in an 18-wheeler. It seems like a tremendous waste of energy for something that could be made locally for cheap.
Globalism doesn't really encourage redundant regions – it encourages all production of a certain type of good to be done in a single region and then traded with other regions for maximum efficiency.
A better alternative would be to have localised production and localised consumption of food and most basic goods. Stuff like not having foreign-cuisine restaurants and not buying salmon from thousands of kilometers away. Cloth production should follow the same idea. People should feel more attached to their birthplace and the goal should be to develop their skills locally with one company preferably. Strong bonds with the local extended family which provides an additional safety net. If your region produces cars, you should be more likely (through education and culture) to become an automotive engineer and live there for your life. Trade for more advanced goods should still be there, but it would be more inter-region and less inter-global.
Globalism isn't so much about helping poor countries as it is a matter of self-interest. First, most nations are not self-sufficient in terms of natural resources, thus they need to trade. Second, productive specialisation and trade results in larger economic output and higher standards of living than could be achieved by not trading and producing everything locally.
If those in power dealt with emergent threats like epidemics, climate change, AI safety, nuclear war, maybe we could trust them with globalized supply chains. But since they hoard profits and refuse to pay taxes, while failing to prioritize the populace survival, seems we may do well to localize into our own communities. Why should we accept global threats and barely reap the rewards of global commerce?
Given the estimated gains of globalization just in economic terms (to say nothing of worldwide economic stability in most situations), which are in the 14-figure range, there's significant doubt here. Yes, there's likely room for things to be made in more than one place in many instances. But global comparative advantage is still the single greatest contributor to rises in global standards of living. Billions of people have been raised from extreme poverty due to globalization in the last few decades.
Those shortages we occasionally get are market opportunities that will encourage new market entrants. We don't need to attack globalism to get redundant production.
Globalism encourages production of goods in multiple regions which are efficient at the production of a particular product.
For example, globalization is why Toyota manufactures cars and car parts in 18 countries, rather than just in Japan. Under localism, Toyota would only manufacture in Japan.
Globalization is only good for GDP and only on first order thinking.
Shipping things that could easily have been made local. Second order cost -- Environmental damage.
Concentration of ecological damage (eg smog in China, clear cuts instead of selective foresting etc).
Decreasing the varietals of foods brought to market so they're stable for shipping , easier to grade / machine. Second order cost -- higher risk to crop failures, loss of heirloom / heritage kinds.
IMO much of "Globalization" is really just power and market arbitrage. Things are inherently cheaper or easier there, the people are just poorer and more desperate. As soon as they have a middle class the "advantage" disappears.
Globalisation is fundamentally about individual freedom. It's about removing the barriers between a person in the USA or Europe meeting and doing business with a person in India, China or Africa without governments getting in the way. Fewer trade barriers, fewer regulations, more freedom.
When you give people freedoms like that, and there is huge advantage to be gained from it, people quickly find ways to scale it up to benefit the maximum number of people as much as possible. That's what a company is. It's a way to scale up economic activity.
This dynamic has raised hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in the last few decades alone. That's a number so big and a transformation in people's lives to dramatic that it's hard to grasp mentally in a meaningful way. That didn't happen because of farmer's markets and buying local produce in Wholefoods, much as it might pain us to admit it.
Does globalisation have it's down side? Yes, absolutely. It has increased pollution and accelerated the rate of consumption of resources. But what could we say to those families, those hundreds of millions of people, that could justify denying them their opportunities?
And our global transportation infrastructure isn’t perfect, but it is the best it’s ever been in all of human history. So I would argue that buying locally is far less important than, say, buying handcrafted goods from small businesses, regardless of location.
reply