Mexico's president has acknowledged that Canada is concerned about reports of a Chinese company's auto plant in Mexico, but she says it does not exist.
The USA has been a force of great evil for the last 70 years, just look at the many countries of south and middle america. And all in the name of free trade and freedom. CCP has done comparibly little. The hipocrisy is staggering.
So, you’re saying that free trade and globalization can be both good and bad simultaneously? Certainly free trade and globalization can have both positive and negative aspects simultaneously, but it can’t be both a net positive and a net negative simultaneously.
The only options I can see are: net negative, net positive, or net neutral. Either good exceeds the bad, the bad exceeds the good, or the good and bad cancel each other out. But, my point was not necessarily about the number of options, but that it is logically impossible for free trade and globalization to be both a net positive and a net negative simultaneously. It must necessarily be one or the other, just like you can’t be both dead and alive at the same time. So, which is it?
At very least, liberals made a miscalculation. They assumed that free trade and globalization would be a net positive, but recent history had made them rethink that position. I think that is because they assumed it would lead to the world embracing liberalism - liberal democracy and neoliberal capitalism, specifically - essentially becoming the only sociopolitical/socioeconomic system in the world. This did not happen. China became a major economic force, despite not being a liberal democracy or neoliberal capitalist, and they show no signs of becoming a liberal nation. It turns out, free trade and globalization can be used by non-liberals to increase their power and influence too. Whoops.
I’ll bite, though I’m pretty sure you’re not discussing in good faith. Globalisation and free trade are a good thing as long as everyone involved is doing it with good intentions. Meaning I’m good at something, so I sell it to you - I gain money, you gain a thing you didn’t have.
Now include actors with bad intentions - like a country subsidizing stuff so that companies can sell stuff at a permanent loss which means no one else can compete and the good actors become dependent on the bad actor - and it goes to shit.
The first scenario is great, free trade and globalisation are really great tools for exchange of goods and money. But it’s very bad when someone has different intentions than making money, like getting other countries dependent on them.
That’s how the same thing can be really great and really bad at the same time.
Sure, if you wanna do absolutes, you could probably calculate whether the bad effect of China fucking up the world by giving their companies an infinite money cheat code is worse than the benefits. And you’d arrive at some result. But most of us are content with recognising the good stuff it gives us and the bad stuff China is abusing it for.
Globalisation and free trade are a good thing as long as everyone involved is doing it with good intentions.
And as you’ve pointed out, not everyone involved is doing with good intentions, therefore it’s not a good thing.
Sure, if you wanna do absolutes, you could probably calculate whether the bad effect of China fucking up the world by giving their companies an infinite money cheat code is worse than the benefits. And you’d arrive at some result.
And clearly liberals have arrived at the conclusion that the bad effects outweigh the benefits, since they are abandoning their previous commitment to open borders and free trade, and moving more toward protectionist policies and reshoring industries.
I’m not sure why you only speak about China as being ‘bad’. I mean China didn’t start the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq and still hasn’t contributed as much CO2 as the US and EU combined (source).
The only options I can see are: net negative, net positive, or net neutral.
Yes because you’re a fundamentalist, maybe you aren’t a religious nut but this is exactly how they think. Nothing can be more complex than what fits into their narrow simplistic worldview.
Help me understand. Help me overcome my narrow, “fundamentalist” thinking. If net positive, net negative, and net neutral are not the only logical possibility, then what other possibilities are there?
If you’re arguing that determining the net of something like globalization is complex and challenging, I agree, but I don’t see how that proves that there are more logical possibilities than the three I’ve identified. Modern global civilization is extraordinarily complex, and yet we try to find ways to measure the effects or outcomes of modern civilization to determine if it has been a net positive or net negative for humanity. This is at the heart of the concept of “progress.” Now, maybe you don’t subscribe to this concept, maybe you reject the grand narrative of human progress, and if that’s the case, well, fair enough, but I can tell you that most of the proponents of globalization absolutely do subscribe to the concept of human progress, and they have advocated for globalization because they believe it will further said progress.
If you’re arguing that “positive” and “negative” in this context are inherently subjective, and thus there’s no way to determine if globalization is objectively positive or negative, that’s fair, but if that’s your argument then it’s just as valid for someone to say globalization is bad as it is for someone to say globalization is good.
You’re very… Combative. I don’t want argue this, mostly because I know arguing will get nowhere. I used to think like this and if you’re genuinely interested there are tons of resources online but mostly just get out of your shell, learn other cultures and worldviews. Not just learn them but befriend people who genuinely view the world completely differently than you. I know from personal experience that just getting into a random argument with a stranger online will just waste both of our time.
Global trade hasn’t helped anyone except Big Business and Wall St. Small businesses hardly ever prosper under the various tariffs and taxation rules, and the average person never benefits from all the plastic shit (including clothing) that forms a fair portion of trade.
I’d like to add what I think is probably the biggest benefit. Economies of scale.
For example, having a mine next to a steel plant next to a manufacturing plant is so much more efficient than shipping the ore to every corner of the earth that it would be impossible to have most of what we have today without doing such things.
So the average person doesn’t really benefit then.
Especially when you remember that the US also has both child and slave labour, microplastics are everywhere-in everything-and everyone, that politicians who are supposed to be looking out for citizens have been bought off by Big Business, and governments often only do something about it when it benefits Big Business.
We benefit from low prices. Not that we shouldn’t invest in our own manufacturing capabilities, just that we receive benefits from globalization even if it predominantly benefits the corporations.
Not to mention that everything you said would still happen regardless of where it’s built. As with many things, the actual problem is our economic system. Big business eating the earth, keeping most of the profits and feeding us poison is a symptom that doesn’t go away just by bringing back the factories.
So you’re good paying 10x-50x more to only use locally sourced, locally made, locally sold products, right? Think all the people in the country are as well?
Liberals: free trade and globalization are good
China becomes a major force in production and global trade
Liberals: free trade and globalization are bad
The Chinese CCP is a force of great evil. All These things can be true at the same time. A functioning mind understands this.
The USA has been a force of great evil for the last 70 years, just look at the many countries of south and middle america. And all in the name of free trade and freedom. CCP has done comparibly little. The hipocrisy is staggering.
So, you’re saying that free trade and globalization can be both good and bad simultaneously? Certainly free trade and globalization can have both positive and negative aspects simultaneously, but it can’t be both a net positive and a net negative simultaneously.
these are not binary options, and it’s immature and dishonest to attempt to frame them like that. argue with yourself if you like.
The only options I can see are: net negative, net positive, or net neutral. Either good exceeds the bad, the bad exceeds the good, or the good and bad cancel each other out. But, my point was not necessarily about the number of options, but that it is logically impossible for free trade and globalization to be both a net positive and a net negative simultaneously. It must necessarily be one or the other, just like you can’t be both dead and alive at the same time. So, which is it?
At very least, liberals made a miscalculation. They assumed that free trade and globalization would be a net positive, but recent history had made them rethink that position. I think that is because they assumed it would lead to the world embracing liberalism - liberal democracy and neoliberal capitalism, specifically - essentially becoming the only sociopolitical/socioeconomic system in the world. This did not happen. China became a major economic force, despite not being a liberal democracy or neoliberal capitalist, and they show no signs of becoming a liberal nation. It turns out, free trade and globalization can be used by non-liberals to increase their power and influence too. Whoops.
Like it or not, the real world doesn’t operate on zero sum game rules.
It is possible to have answers other than black or white.
That doesn’t make any sense. Certainly they thought free trade and globalization would be a net positive for someone. Otherwise, why do it?
I’ll bite, though I’m pretty sure you’re not discussing in good faith. Globalisation and free trade are a good thing as long as everyone involved is doing it with good intentions. Meaning I’m good at something, so I sell it to you - I gain money, you gain a thing you didn’t have.
Now include actors with bad intentions - like a country subsidizing stuff so that companies can sell stuff at a permanent loss which means no one else can compete and the good actors become dependent on the bad actor - and it goes to shit.
The first scenario is great, free trade and globalisation are really great tools for exchange of goods and money. But it’s very bad when someone has different intentions than making money, like getting other countries dependent on them.
That’s how the same thing can be really great and really bad at the same time.
Sure, if you wanna do absolutes, you could probably calculate whether the bad effect of China fucking up the world by giving their companies an infinite money cheat code is worse than the benefits. And you’d arrive at some result. But most of us are content with recognising the good stuff it gives us and the bad stuff China is abusing it for.
And as you’ve pointed out, not everyone involved is doing with good intentions, therefore it’s not a good thing.
And clearly liberals have arrived at the conclusion that the bad effects outweigh the benefits, since they are abandoning their previous commitment to open borders and free trade, and moving more toward protectionist policies and reshoring industries.
I’m not sure why you only speak about China as being ‘bad’. I mean China didn’t start the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq and still hasn’t contributed as much CO2 as the US and EU combined (source).
Yes because you’re a fundamentalist, maybe you aren’t a religious nut but this is exactly how they think. Nothing can be more complex than what fits into their narrow simplistic worldview.
Help me understand. Help me overcome my narrow, “fundamentalist” thinking. If net positive, net negative, and net neutral are not the only logical possibility, then what other possibilities are there?
If you’re arguing that determining the net of something like globalization is complex and challenging, I agree, but I don’t see how that proves that there are more logical possibilities than the three I’ve identified. Modern global civilization is extraordinarily complex, and yet we try to find ways to measure the effects or outcomes of modern civilization to determine if it has been a net positive or net negative for humanity. This is at the heart of the concept of “progress.” Now, maybe you don’t subscribe to this concept, maybe you reject the grand narrative of human progress, and if that’s the case, well, fair enough, but I can tell you that most of the proponents of globalization absolutely do subscribe to the concept of human progress, and they have advocated for globalization because they believe it will further said progress.
If you’re arguing that “positive” and “negative” in this context are inherently subjective, and thus there’s no way to determine if globalization is objectively positive or negative, that’s fair, but if that’s your argument then it’s just as valid for someone to say globalization is bad as it is for someone to say globalization is good.
You’re very… Combative. I don’t want argue this, mostly because I know arguing will get nowhere. I used to think like this and if you’re genuinely interested there are tons of resources online but mostly just get out of your shell, learn other cultures and worldviews. Not just learn them but befriend people who genuinely view the world completely differently than you. I know from personal experience that just getting into a random argument with a stranger online will just waste both of our time.
Alright, well if you’re not willing to explain how or why you changed your thinking on this topic, at least link me to even one of these “resources.”
And then there’s the large number of us who think ‘globalization’ should be like it is in Star Trek and not like it is in either China or the West.
But everyone has to pick a side and there are good guys and bad guys, am I right?
Global trade hasn’t helped anyone except Big Business and Wall St. Small businesses hardly ever prosper under the various tariffs and taxation rules, and the average person never benefits from all the plastic shit (including clothing) that forms a fair portion of trade.
The only reason our shit is so cheap is because it’s made by children in other countries.
Of course we’re benefitting from it. The ceos are keeping a big part of the pie but let’s not pretend we aren’t getting some of it too.
I’d like to add what I think is probably the biggest benefit. Economies of scale.
For example, having a mine next to a steel plant next to a manufacturing plant is so much more efficient than shipping the ore to every corner of the earth that it would be impossible to have most of what we have today without doing such things.
So the average person doesn’t really benefit then.
Especially when you remember that the US also has both child and slave labour, microplastics are everywhere-in everything-and everyone, that politicians who are supposed to be looking out for citizens have been bought off by Big Business, and governments often only do something about it when it benefits Big Business.
We benefit from low prices. Not that we shouldn’t invest in our own manufacturing capabilities, just that we receive benefits from globalization even if it predominantly benefits the corporations.
Not to mention that everything you said would still happen regardless of where it’s built. As with many things, the actual problem is our economic system. Big business eating the earth, keeping most of the profits and feeding us poison is a symptom that doesn’t go away just by bringing back the factories.
The electronic device you are using is only possible through a global trade network.
So you’re good paying 10x-50x more to only use locally sourced, locally made, locally sold products, right? Think all the people in the country are as well?
Hence wanting the world globalized like in Star Trek and not like the way anyone is actually trying to do it.
(the point you were making) Their headI know it sounds like a blasphemy, but for a few seconds let’s pretend not everyone has seen Star Trek.
Then asking what the person who is referencing Star Trek means seems like a better option.