I thought I would separate this as it’s not really VP related and is interesting.
This is the topic that more than any shifted me from extreme left politics. In the 90s I was very active in the anti-globalization movement. Read everything imaginable, carried around No Logo like a bible, even was at Seattle WTO protests.
However as I began to study economics more I was exposed to the research which pretty clearly demonstrates the huge gains there have been ON AVERAGE, for the poorest people that are directly tied to increased trade and open markets.
That being said, I emphasize on average as it’s very important. Of course there are countless examples of awful labour and environmental practices that have and continue to disproportionately harm the poorest people. There are lots of terrible policies still which do the same. All of these are important issues that require a ton of work to keep moving people out of poverty.
Nonetheless, I find it hard to view the evidence any other way than billions of people have been raised out of the worst poverty by being granted access to global markets.
A solid case can be made though that the same globalization has harmed the middle class, especially the very people who now support Trump.
I’m saying your post - especially the title - was a shitty representation of the discussion. The post is pretty shitty on it’s own as well. (that’s also not an actual argument)
The whole OP would have to be replaced. The discussion was about what factors and in what proportions have been responsible for the decrease in extreme poverty over the last few/several decades. It wasn’t about the simple substitute for the whole of recent history and economics that you just want to call “globalization”.
The pro-globalization movement is like all reactionary movements. Shallow. The idea that anyone just has a blanket opposition to international trade is absurd and the tacit assumption that that’s the position of all the dumb hippies is clownish.
The title is bad because no-one suggested “globalization” is bad for the poor. It’s a ridiculous simplification. Was imperialism part of globalization? If South Korea protects domestic industry and encourages exports is that globalization? If the United States develops agricultural technology and shares it freely with Latin America (the green revolution) is that “globalization”?
The term was first used about India in the 1960s, but that was following similar programs in Mexico and Latin America in the 1940s.
The term “Green Revolution” was coined by William Gaud whilst Director of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). He was describing the spectacular increases in cereal crop yields that were achieved in developing countries during the 1960s. The key to this revolution were new plant varieties which fully utilised improved fertilisers and other new agrochemicals that had become available during this period. When planted using improved irrigation and crop management techniques, these new varieties gave dramatic increases in yield.
The origins of the “Green Revolution” can be traced back to the middle of the 1940s when US Vice-President Henry Wallace toured Mexico as a special ambassador.
Henry Wallace had also been Secretary of Agriculture and had himself been a farmer who developed corn varieties with higher yields.
It’s not enough to raise the absolute value of life for the poorest of the poor. We should also seek to increase their wealth and political power relative to that of the elites.
While I don’t believe in the idea of a totally classless society, I do believe in the goal of decreased inequality at a manageable level. Has globalization been accompanied by an increase in inequality? If so, can global markets be pursued in a way that doesn’t exacerbate inequality? Does that involve not caving to the neoliberal desire for deregulation?
What should be our goal? What is the role of government in achieving that goal? Start by answering those questions.
I totally agree. It’s a huge issue that while the poorest have realized an increase the richest have realized a larger one. This however doesn’t negate the huge amount of good that has come to those who have had the increase at the poorest level. We sometimes get too focussed on the bad, for understandable reasons, but it can cause is to miss some of the good things going on.
The ultimate goal is obviously to increase the percentage going to poor while decreasing it going to the rich. This will take regulation and taxation policy.