I don’t know if there will ever be a final word on this
argument. The Ricardian argument for comparative advantage feels right in the
model, but once you start looking at the actual results of periods of globalization,
it is troubling. Because what we have to be careful when we’re asking if
globalization is good is who is it good for. Is it good for the world economy
in aggregate? Is it good for workers or business owners or both or neither?
For me, I have called myself a Free Trade Marxists because
for me my religion has long been summed up by the call in the last lines of the
Manifesto: Proletarier aller Länder vereinigt Euch!
All Lands |
In the long term we have to have worker unity
across cultures and languages and realize that the myth of national borders is
just another form of bourgeois social control where we are angry at the wrong
people. It is not the Mexican worker that is stealing jobs, but the owner of
capital using the logic of capitalism to ship those jobs elsewhere or to even
mechanize them away.
Because what is happening in the short term
is that the benefits of globalization are spread thin. We as consumers are able
to save pennies on our consumer goods at Walmart or Aldi. The problem is that
the costs are spread in a much more chunky manner. If you work at the Whirlpool
factory or live in the community that is supported by that factory and
Whirlpool’s parent company decides to cut costs, globalization’s costs far
exceed the reality of a cheaper consumer good. Your income goes to zero and you
can’t buy that consumer good, no matter how cheap.
This disconnect has given rise, in concert
with other issues, to economic nationalism reflected in the Brexit vote or the Electoral
College victory of Donald Trump. What I’m afraid of is that these political
actions won’t lessen the costs – there is no movement towards a large retraining
or relocation plan. One of the key plans Trump has supported is lessening the
so-called “War on Coal,” which is fighting its own market forces in light of a
larger move towards cleaner energy generation. This is a move backwards. Then
on the other hand there is a move to eliminate the benefits of free trade, in
ripping up agreements. The hope is that these manufacturers will reshore, but
the reality is that to rebuild factories where once thousands were employed
will only have a fraction of that because of technological advances. And then
you have to hope people are trained for your needs. This will raise costs for
everyone and not be the panacea that is hoped for by the people who need jobs
and have seen the productive capacity of their towns leak away.
So politically, globalization is a huge issue
in terms of how we as an individual country react to it. I just worry that in
pushing economic nationalism we will be throwing out the baby with the
bathwater.
No comments:
Post a Comment