ubertuber

roachboy,
Do you follow the writing of Thomas Friedman (NY Times foreign affairs columnist/book author)? He writes excellent analyses of globalization and its implications (in my opinion). Now, he would be the first to admit that his point of view is explicitly pro-globalization, but for good reason (I think). All first-world coutries are so plugged into the international economy that choosing to be pro or anti-globalization is a moot point by now. One can only choose to cooperate with the new world order or damage your own economy by trying to resist and delaying the inevitable. In short, the only choice that is real is that of when you are going to start to compete in the new globalized economy. You could let your industries take an immediate hit and innovate now or die, which will definitely mean that some US companies will go under, in particular raw manufacturing and blue-collar work. This is part of what Friedman calls the "creative destruction" of capitalism. The only other alternative is "protectionist" policies, such as import limits and tariffs. These may buy a little time in terms of domestic sales, but will make the fall so much harder when the pressures of the global economy finally set in. There is no withdrawal from the global system - not for the developed world.

What makes the individual decisions seem difficult is that politics creates pressure to act to preserve US jobs (as if that were truly possible). Saving those jobs now may be politically expedient in the short term, but it is a false economy (in both senses). Companies must compete now or compete later, that much is certain. Choosing to impose artificial restraints on our domestic market to protect domestic corporations will only stifle the inevitable competition that will come. Just ask China, Korea, Indonesia, and Malaysia about that.

Of course, this is highly ironic - we in the US see ourselves as the inventors and guardians of capitalism, and with the commoditization on shipping and information transmission (due to digital technology) there is virtually no way for our basic manufacturing and blue-collar processes to compete with the coutries we were previously exploiting. My question is more focussed: what will be the role of domestic labor unions in a globalized economy? If unions persists in driving production costs up to fund a standard of living without yielding some serious concessions in productivity, they will only drive domestic companies out of the country or out of business faster.

Raveneye's point is both short-sighted (sorry Raveneye!) and very insightful. The US doesn't live in a bubble-world - it is our economy, military and ideology that in large part prepared the way for globalization. However, anyone of any party who thinks that we can choose between globalization and a nationalistic economy is not just losing the game - they're playing the wrong sport. Arguing these sorts of points is stupid, shortsighted and ultimately futile. We need to be figuring out what we are going to do about globalization (how to continue to adapt and excel), not how to stop it. Incidentally, it isn't Europe that is outside the bubble and seeing clearly - it's Asia. The countries I mentioned before aren't wondering at their recent economic success - they know exactly what they have done to produce growth, and that is conform to the pressures of a global economy, give up local control, and compete fiercely in an international system.

I'd suggest Thomas Friedman's books The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization and The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century to anyone who want to understand what will probably be the defining paradigms for the next period of politics and economics.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam