Your opinion on this statement about globalization?

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

"In most cases, the options are rather limited - globalization, for instance, is a fact and will only intensify over the course of our lifetime (regardless of what national governments want and do). And it will always create winners and losers. Second, the “victim of globalization” / “overwhelmed by cultural change” identity is more often performative than it is material."

[dead0man]

I don't know if it's a "freedom" statement or not, but it's obviously true.  Globalization exists, it will expand no matter what national govts do, it will create winners and losers and most of the crying will be false.

[parochial boy]

The first part is true. Globalisation will continue to happen. But the important part that is missed is that the rules of globalisation as they re currently designed were the result of deliberate and ideologically motivated political choices. Everything surrounding the rules of trade, the design of international institutions, to the (absence of) rules around things like global fiscality or worker rights - those were, are, and will be political choices.

The second part is just snooty elitism from the kind of person who is refusing to see the shortcomings of their own ideology.

[Ferguson97]

"In most cases, the options are rather limited - globalization, for instance, is a fact and will only intensify over the course of our lifetime (regardless of what national governments want and do). And it will always create winners and losers. Second, the “victim of globalization” / “overwhelmed by cultural change” identity is more often performative than it is material."[/b]

This part is obviously true. There are legitimate economic criticisms of globalization and the negative effects of it are obviously material, but the arguments against cultural changes are performative at best and xenophobic at worst.

[Vosem]

It is an unkind statement, but it is true and in fact importantly true. Freedom statement (R).

[PSOL]

Blatantly incorrect, given we are seeing the beginning of the breakdowns of global supply chains.

[dead0man]

Blatantly incorrect, given we are seeing the beginning of the breakdowns of global supply chains.

you think there will be fewer "global supply chains" in a decade?

[parochial boy]

Blatantly incorrect, given we are seeing the beginning of the breakdowns of global supply chains.

you think there will be fewer "global supply chains" in a decade?

To some extent probably - the Covid pandemic, Ukraine war, Chinese aggressiveness have all opened eyes to the fragilities of the global supply chains that exist and I suspect a lot of the strategic decision makers are going to be factoring in these various risks of disruptions into future investment choices.

Plus some political pressure, but especially political decisions around the need to reduce use of fossil fuels to combat climate change / dependence on increasingly rogue fossil fuel producers. Moving from oil and gas to renewables is quite clearly going to reduce the length and scope of some international supply chains

Not some great "deglobalisation" on the whole, but probably a, shall we say, more nuanced way that globalisation is put into practice.

[Schiff for Senate]

Freedom statement by virtue of being the truth

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Blatantly incorrect, given we are seeing the beginning of the breakdowns of global supply chains.

A breakdown accelerated massively as a result of COVID-19, an epidemic that was arguably caused by globalisation and which international institutions failed to address. As long as globalisation continues to be mismanaged by arrogant elites, it is likely to see further reversals.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I can't tell without larger context.  How is the "performative" vs "material" distinction meant here?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Imagine saying that in 1850, and consider the implications of that at the time.

Sure, the economy is an organic phenomenon that does take on a life of its own. But this idea that we are chained to what ever it dictates is dangerous.

We have a situation where the "market" has given the PRC regime in China tremendous leverage and rather than force that regime to reform as was promised by free traders in the 1990s, instead it has  given a totalitarian regime a 17 trillion dollar octopus through which to dictate responses to its actions.

Now of course, the idea that the global trade situation is a "free market" is paramount delusion considering how much the scales are tipped as such.

I am generally a free market and pro-business type person, but I am not an absolutist and instead consider myself more of a realist and therefore I am willing to entertain conditioning those objectives  to promote "select national interests".