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 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.
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.
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.
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).
Because we were talking about free trade and globalisation. Your whataboutism is not welcome here.
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.