From the point of view of all humans on Earth, Globalization did not fail but improved the lives of billions. What lies ahead is the next stage of human development toward another level of abundance.
Another very interesting essay. I hope & pray you’re right about our ultimate destiny. Generally speaking people really are the same wherever you go on earth. Left or right, we all want freedom, clean air, clean water, prosperity, eliminate poverty & hunger, etc..
Globalism has stalled because it’s contrived. Unproductive far left plans impose needless (carbon) taxes, open borders, electric mandates, corporate media narratives masquerading as journalism, unprecedented global corruption, etc., etc.. Is MAGA the answer? For now the country responsible for creating historic global prosperity prefers a constitutional republic over unelected bureaucrat’s veiled democracy advocating killing cows to entice urbanization.
Seriously Peter, your essays are very thoughtful and eloquent but seem motivated by an ideology that’s hardly left of center. We don’t need higher taxes. The way to global peace and prosperity is come together to destroy the corruption standing in the way of our opportunity. AI must help.
AI is a tool. it will be misused... just like all other tools humans have created. i don't want chinese, russian, or organized crime style AI, and it is clear you do not want that either.
Amazing article! 100% agree. This is a clear trend that simply cannot be averted despite some desperate attempts to appear to be doing so. In the long-run it may only hasten these outcomes for ROW.
One question i would have is the $2 poverty level still accurate? My guess with inflation is that its closer to $5-$10 today. But I assume those numbers are inflation-adjusted so the percentages still are accurate.
This will be a good series if this is the indicator!
They are very good about comparing inflation adjusted numbers over time. Both the UN but also Our World in Data, which is where those charts came from. They are an amazing resource is you have not checked them out: https://ourworldindata.org
I wonder how you consider the fall of the US empire. Will another country become the next world empire, or will the world finally reject one country's dominance and work together for universal abundance for all Earthlings?
I am working on that theme in my book, and you can see some other essays in this series that gets at some of what you are pointing out. One, I think America is in its fourth reinvention and will come out very different from the America that Trump temporarily is trying to create. But I do think we are going into an era beyond one dominant hegemon, with the US and China playing large roles but not the only ones. More to come on that in the book and other essays.
the US will fall one day. all do - "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" by Kennedy.
for the US, the fall must come from the inside. the US has too much advantage on every factor that matters in geopolitics: agriculture, transportation, energy, and defendability.
the "world" does not have the ability to join together. far too many rivalries to overcome make it impossible. france and germany will always be rivals. turkey and iran will always be rivals. china and india will always be rivals.
as for the americans proactively sacrificing our standard of living for the good of the world, it would be pointless. the resources would be devoured by the world and the difference would barely be noticable.
I am an economist and a big fan of the benefits of globalization, which you describe well. I wish you also described the negatives, which are not only the effect on American (and European) workers. The rise of dictatorships is in hindsight a predictable consequence of globalization -- not only did incomes generally rise, but income disparities rose even more, and the new elite turned their economic power into political power. I have recently been watching a Native American social media poster talk about the cooperative economy -- neither Capitalist nor Communist -- there is a lot we can and need to learn about the benefits of mutual assistance in communities. It would have made a big difference for those MidWestern workers.
Yes, you do rightly point out other negative consequences beyond what I pointed out too. I have addressed the inequality new Gilded Age issue in some other essays in this series and there is only so much you can do in one article. We could have managed the globalization phase much better than we did, dealing better with displaced workers, as you mention, but also reigning in the extremes of wealth inequality without killing the incentives for entrepreneurs and financial risk takers. My book is trying to bring al this together in one place.
As an economist I know nothing of the sort. The way the economy is structured and operates has significantly to do with 1. culture, 2. governance and 3. consequences of incentives. Economics is not an ideology of individualism, "the survival of the fittest", etc. It is a behavioral science, based on observation and observed consequences, not preconceived opinion. There are many instances when people sacrifice themselves for others. Yes, of course this is most likely to be toward others in their identity group -- the family or ethnic group or community or college or even country. Sacrifice for others need not be "perfect" altruism -- it is perfectly compatible with Adam Smith that one would give up goods or time or money in order to improve the social environment -- it is simply that disincentives to do so abound in much of the current USA -- nevertheless, it is a tradeoff that has clear benefits. With properly designed incentives people could recognize those benefits.
Arthur Smith, says "one will give up goods and time or money in order to improve their PERSONAL social environment. People in Chicago don't give a rats ass about the social environment in Texas... and vice versa... in fact, there is much spite that exists between the two."
LOL -- you are putting it starkly, but there is something to that. But keep in mind that in a globalized world there is a lot of interconnectivity that matters. The biggest export market for Texas beef is Mexico. Do Texas cowboys care about Mexico? Well, many of their jobs depend on them. If conflict between the Mexican government and drug cartels grows to the point of civil war, that would harm them. Texas' largest export product is oil & gas and petroleum products -- again, Mexico is the largest market. Mexico is also the largest export market for pork bellies, one of the largest commodities traded on the Chicago commodities exchange. Oil & gas contracts are among the main contracts traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Traders on that exchange should care about Mexico and its social environment, and also Texas oilmen should care about those traders in Chicago. Running street battles between Socialists and Proud Boys would stop all that commerce. Calm down, guys! We're just trying to make a living over here!
i appreciate that you can laugh at my comment. humor was intended.
in all your examples, it seems to me the interests you express were not based on sacrifice for the good of others, but instead concern for impact on self...
And I get yours. People are much more likely to care about people they know. What was described in a video by a Native American influencer that I saw which spoke of this in terms of governance -- I think it's more like culture at this stage. The current dominant culture in the US clusters people by identity communities -- and those communities are in a hierarchy by socio-economic power. They sit side-by-side, but some have much more influence than others. What if those hierarchical identity communities did not exist? Yes, it is a "what if?" question. Yet, there are already mechanisms that work counter to the strengthening of those systems. In public schools, children of all identity communities are encouraged to be friends and to treat each other well -- and children have no problem doing that, unless their families strongly forbid it. (This is why in Texas and especially Southern states there is such a push for state funding of private, mostly identity-community-specific, schools.) I am an advocate of breaking down those socio-cultural identity community barriers, so as to create larger mess isolating communities with more members, more mutual assistance, more opportunities for comparative advantage and trade, and therefore more economic potential along with less social conflict. What's not to love?
i look forward to seeing your forecasts. especially looking for how you see:
1. the role of the US which not only enabled globalization (with its navy and capital) but architected it with nato, wto, fiat currency, etc. to counter the ussr gaining unfettered access to the atlantic ocean
2. the role of europe as the US withdraws (hope they don't return to their brutal ways w/o us there to parent them. yes, i intend that to sound insulting because for centuries they were brutal including the brits, germans, french, italians, spanish, portuguese, and dutch but it is typically the US that is identified as being brutal. they killed far more the native americans and first nations than the US, and they globalized slavery)
3. the role of the US in asia/pacific as the US forges new alliances to counter china (prevent unfettered access to the pacific ocean)
4. chinese demographic draw back (population collapse). china has more people in their 70's than 60's, 60's than 50's, 50's than 40's, etc... obviously in the next 20 years china is positioned to lose half its population to death by natural causes...
Arthur, you certainly can call me Peter, or I often go by Pete too. You raise some good questions that will take other essays and ultimately the book to lay all out.
I just delivered the first draft of the book a week ago, with another 6 weeks of edits and rewrites ahead. But in there I take on almost all the points you raise.
I will say that I am not in the new Cold War with China camp, if that is what you were implying. One of the reasons in this essay I remind people of the actual Cold War is because China is NOT the Soviet Union in many ways. We are WAY more entangled with them. And you raise the demographic point too.
The relationship with China going forward is very different, and more open-ended than many think. At least that is my opinion, which I have touched on in some other essays (my one last fall after coming back from China), and which is going to be a bigger part of the book. More later.
i do not disagree with any of your points. my point is, regardless of what the chinese intend, american strategy will be to keep the pacific ocean as a buffer between the US and any other super power contender (and that can only be china at this point).
The most interesting thing about humanity is its tremendous racial, ethnic, spiritual, and cultural diversity. Globalism destroys identities and imposes a plastic global monoculture. No thanks.
Re; “globalization improved the lives of billions”, to the extent that middle class wealth in developed countries was transferred to “developing” countries it has been beneficial to the developing countries. The benefit to the working class depends in part on the level of corruption. Has the quality of life risen commensurate to the wealth transferred? Most still have very low to no safety standards, EPA regulations, etc.. More recent examples of globalists controlling the European Union and U.S. leftists used color revolutions, rigged elections, censorship and bribery in Ukraine, Romania and Hungary. For example significant funds were funneled thru USAID to Ukraine to bribe, fund and propagandize the Maidan Protest. This was a contrived color revolution. The contrived globalism of the Left will fail. Glimmers of hope appear in parts of Europe and Latin America. Hope and pray the Irish succeed in rejecting the evil intentions to destroy their beautiful heritage.
No mention of the rise of Islam and the effects negative or positive. One third of countries are now Muslim. Curtailing this colonization of the west is of the most importance.
i suspect the people that follow islam will get onboard with AI (with their version of controls), biotech (with limits), and new energy (oil is needed for far more components than fuel).
i wasn't addressing their motive/objective. simply that, like other societies, they will adopt the innovations that are emerging and will be part of the great progression.
the islamic nations have adopted many modern innovations like drones, oil refining, mega cities, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, etc. why wouldn't they adopt AI, biotech, and renewable energy?
and, as you say, they are many nations and represent billions of people...
Another very interesting essay. I hope & pray you’re right about our ultimate destiny. Generally speaking people really are the same wherever you go on earth. Left or right, we all want freedom, clean air, clean water, prosperity, eliminate poverty & hunger, etc..
Globalism has stalled because it’s contrived. Unproductive far left plans impose needless (carbon) taxes, open borders, electric mandates, corporate media narratives masquerading as journalism, unprecedented global corruption, etc., etc.. Is MAGA the answer? For now the country responsible for creating historic global prosperity prefers a constitutional republic over unelected bureaucrat’s veiled democracy advocating killing cows to entice urbanization.
Seriously Peter, your essays are very thoughtful and eloquent but seem motivated by an ideology that’s hardly left of center. We don’t need higher taxes. The way to global peace and prosperity is come together to destroy the corruption standing in the way of our opportunity. AI must help.
AI is a tool. it will be misused... just like all other tools humans have created. i don't want chinese, russian, or organized crime style AI, and it is clear you do not want that either.
Amazing article! 100% agree. This is a clear trend that simply cannot be averted despite some desperate attempts to appear to be doing so. In the long-run it may only hasten these outcomes for ROW.
One question i would have is the $2 poverty level still accurate? My guess with inflation is that its closer to $5-$10 today. But I assume those numbers are inflation-adjusted so the percentages still are accurate.
This will be a good series if this is the indicator!
does the dollar amount matter really? what i see in those numbers is that poverty in america isn't so damn bad... we have a lack of perspective.
They are very good about comparing inflation adjusted numbers over time. Both the UN but also Our World in Data, which is where those charts came from. They are an amazing resource is you have not checked them out: https://ourworldindata.org
old microsoft connection???
Very interesting and informative article. I have written an article forecasting how the world will evolve over the next several decades. Here is the link in interested - https://antermukha.substack.com/p/the-emerging-world-order-from-globalization?r=1m79w
I wonder how you consider the fall of the US empire. Will another country become the next world empire, or will the world finally reject one country's dominance and work together for universal abundance for all Earthlings?
I am working on that theme in my book, and you can see some other essays in this series that gets at some of what you are pointing out. One, I think America is in its fourth reinvention and will come out very different from the America that Trump temporarily is trying to create. But I do think we are going into an era beyond one dominant hegemon, with the US and China playing large roles but not the only ones. More to come on that in the book and other essays.
the US will fall one day. all do - "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" by Kennedy.
for the US, the fall must come from the inside. the US has too much advantage on every factor that matters in geopolitics: agriculture, transportation, energy, and defendability.
the "world" does not have the ability to join together. far too many rivalries to overcome make it impossible. france and germany will always be rivals. turkey and iran will always be rivals. china and india will always be rivals.
as for the americans proactively sacrificing our standard of living for the good of the world, it would be pointless. the resources would be devoured by the world and the difference would barely be noticable.
I am an economist and a big fan of the benefits of globalization, which you describe well. I wish you also described the negatives, which are not only the effect on American (and European) workers. The rise of dictatorships is in hindsight a predictable consequence of globalization -- not only did incomes generally rise, but income disparities rose even more, and the new elite turned their economic power into political power. I have recently been watching a Native American social media poster talk about the cooperative economy -- neither Capitalist nor Communist -- there is a lot we can and need to learn about the benefits of mutual assistance in communities. It would have made a big difference for those MidWestern workers.
Yes, you do rightly point out other negative consequences beyond what I pointed out too. I have addressed the inequality new Gilded Age issue in some other essays in this series and there is only so much you can do in one article. We could have managed the globalization phase much better than we did, dealing better with displaced workers, as you mention, but also reigning in the extremes of wealth inequality without killing the incentives for entrepreneurs and financial risk takers. My book is trying to bring al this together in one place.
as an economist you should know that human behavior is economic behavior and human nature precludes making sacrifices for strangers...
As an economist I know nothing of the sort. The way the economy is structured and operates has significantly to do with 1. culture, 2. governance and 3. consequences of incentives. Economics is not an ideology of individualism, "the survival of the fittest", etc. It is a behavioral science, based on observation and observed consequences, not preconceived opinion. There are many instances when people sacrifice themselves for others. Yes, of course this is most likely to be toward others in their identity group -- the family or ethnic group or community or college or even country. Sacrifice for others need not be "perfect" altruism -- it is perfectly compatible with Adam Smith that one would give up goods or time or money in order to improve the social environment -- it is simply that disincentives to do so abound in much of the current USA -- nevertheless, it is a tradeoff that has clear benefits. With properly designed incentives people could recognize those benefits.
Arthur Smith, says "one will give up goods and time or money in order to improve their PERSONAL social environment. People in Chicago don't give a rats ass about the social environment in Texas... and vice versa... in fact, there is much spite that exists between the two."
LOL -- you are putting it starkly, but there is something to that. But keep in mind that in a globalized world there is a lot of interconnectivity that matters. The biggest export market for Texas beef is Mexico. Do Texas cowboys care about Mexico? Well, many of their jobs depend on them. If conflict between the Mexican government and drug cartels grows to the point of civil war, that would harm them. Texas' largest export product is oil & gas and petroleum products -- again, Mexico is the largest market. Mexico is also the largest export market for pork bellies, one of the largest commodities traded on the Chicago commodities exchange. Oil & gas contracts are among the main contracts traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Traders on that exchange should care about Mexico and its social environment, and also Texas oilmen should care about those traders in Chicago. Running street battles between Socialists and Proud Boys would stop all that commerce. Calm down, guys! We're just trying to make a living over here!
i appreciate that you can laugh at my comment. humor was intended.
in all your examples, it seems to me the interests you express were not based on sacrifice for the good of others, but instead concern for impact on self...
but i get your point.
And I get yours. People are much more likely to care about people they know. What was described in a video by a Native American influencer that I saw which spoke of this in terms of governance -- I think it's more like culture at this stage. The current dominant culture in the US clusters people by identity communities -- and those communities are in a hierarchy by socio-economic power. They sit side-by-side, but some have much more influence than others. What if those hierarchical identity communities did not exist? Yes, it is a "what if?" question. Yet, there are already mechanisms that work counter to the strengthening of those systems. In public schools, children of all identity communities are encouraged to be friends and to treat each other well -- and children have no problem doing that, unless their families strongly forbid it. (This is why in Texas and especially Southern states there is such a push for state funding of private, mostly identity-community-specific, schools.) I am an advocate of breaking down those socio-cultural identity community barriers, so as to create larger mess isolating communities with more members, more mutual assistance, more opportunities for comparative advantage and trade, and therefore more economic potential along with less social conflict. What's not to love?
Peter (can we be that familiar),
i look forward to seeing your forecasts. especially looking for how you see:
1. the role of the US which not only enabled globalization (with its navy and capital) but architected it with nato, wto, fiat currency, etc. to counter the ussr gaining unfettered access to the atlantic ocean
2. the role of europe as the US withdraws (hope they don't return to their brutal ways w/o us there to parent them. yes, i intend that to sound insulting because for centuries they were brutal including the brits, germans, french, italians, spanish, portuguese, and dutch but it is typically the US that is identified as being brutal. they killed far more the native americans and first nations than the US, and they globalized slavery)
3. the role of the US in asia/pacific as the US forges new alliances to counter china (prevent unfettered access to the pacific ocean)
4. chinese demographic draw back (population collapse). china has more people in their 70's than 60's, 60's than 50's, 50's than 40's, etc... obviously in the next 20 years china is positioned to lose half its population to death by natural causes...
Arthur, you certainly can call me Peter, or I often go by Pete too. You raise some good questions that will take other essays and ultimately the book to lay all out.
I just delivered the first draft of the book a week ago, with another 6 weeks of edits and rewrites ahead. But in there I take on almost all the points you raise.
I will say that I am not in the new Cold War with China camp, if that is what you were implying. One of the reasons in this essay I remind people of the actual Cold War is because China is NOT the Soviet Union in many ways. We are WAY more entangled with them. And you raise the demographic point too.
The relationship with China going forward is very different, and more open-ended than many think. At least that is my opinion, which I have touched on in some other essays (my one last fall after coming back from China), and which is going to be a bigger part of the book. More later.
i do not disagree with any of your points. my point is, regardless of what the chinese intend, american strategy will be to keep the pacific ocean as a buffer between the US and any other super power contender (and that can only be china at this point).
The most interesting thing about humanity is its tremendous racial, ethnic, spiritual, and cultural diversity. Globalism destroys identities and imposes a plastic global monoculture. No thanks.
Re; “globalization improved the lives of billions”, to the extent that middle class wealth in developed countries was transferred to “developing” countries it has been beneficial to the developing countries. The benefit to the working class depends in part on the level of corruption. Has the quality of life risen commensurate to the wealth transferred? Most still have very low to no safety standards, EPA regulations, etc.. More recent examples of globalists controlling the European Union and U.S. leftists used color revolutions, rigged elections, censorship and bribery in Ukraine, Romania and Hungary. For example significant funds were funneled thru USAID to Ukraine to bribe, fund and propagandize the Maidan Protest. This was a contrived color revolution. The contrived globalism of the Left will fail. Glimmers of hope appear in parts of Europe and Latin America. Hope and pray the Irish succeed in rejecting the evil intentions to destroy their beautiful heritage.
No mention of the rise of Islam and the effects negative or positive. One third of countries are now Muslim. Curtailing this colonization of the west is of the most importance.
i suspect the people that follow islam will get onboard with AI (with their version of controls), biotech (with limits), and new energy (oil is needed for far more components than fuel).
Islams objective is world domination through colonization. Similar to how europe colonized most of the planet. The west must resist this.
i wasn't addressing their motive/objective. simply that, like other societies, they will adopt the innovations that are emerging and will be part of the great progression.
The radical arm will not be part of the great progression and will do everything to defeat it.
time will tell.
the islamic nations have adopted many modern innovations like drones, oil refining, mega cities, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, etc. why wouldn't they adopt AI, biotech, and renewable energy?
and, as you say, they are many nations and represent billions of people...
Yah let's hope the positive side prevails.
Will Islamic nation’s adaptation of AI tamp down their religious quest to make the world Islam or enable it?