Is globalization a bad deal for the U.S.? | The Tylt
Donald Trump was voted into power on the promise that he would turn the U.S. away from the "false song of globalism." He and his base argue globalization has only benefited the elite class while being a bad deal for American workers. Others argue that globalization has brought the world closer together and consequently made the world better. What do you think? 🌎
Is globalization a bad deal for the U.S.?
Trump and his supporters argue globalization ultimately hurts U.S. workers. Between outsourcing and immigration, American citizens are facing pressure on multiple fronts as jobs are exported overseas and companies are able to pay lower wages by employing immigrants. They say deals like NAFTA and TPP are made in the interests of corporations, not workers.
Instead of embracing globalization, Trump supporters advocate for an "America first" policy which preaches economic patriotism and closed borders.
The result of this “tweet therapy” has been an overhaul of thinking in Corporate America. Surveying Trump’s new style of presidential bully pulpiteering, Reuters concludes, “Corporate leaders . . . can no longer focus only on maximizing shareholder value; they must now also weigh national interest.” Yes, that’s correct: American business executives are now getting a crash course in economic patriotism; they can no longer act as if they aren’t citizens of this country—or that other US citizens don’t matter. Because of Trump, they must now take into account the overall strength and well-being of the nation in which they reside.
Here's how the Trump campaign defines globalism:
“An economic and political ideology which puts allegiance to international institutions ahead of the nation-state; seeks the unrestricted movement of goods, labor and people across borders; and rejects the principle that the citizens of a country are entitled to preference for jobs and other economic considerations as a virtue of their citizenship.”
Trump's critics argue globalism is a boogeyman created by Trump and his base. It presents a false choice between American interests and international institutions. It's part of a larger apocalyptic framing of the U.S. that critics say does not reflect reality. Critics say globalism is a dog whistle for American protectionism tinged with a healthy dose of racism.
“Globalism,” then, is a combination of make-believe, conspiracy theory, and American exceptionalism. The far right has long held to a fervid conspiracy theory that the left is orchestrating a deliberate campaign to sabotage America’s white majority through unrestricted immigration, and thereby ensure a permanent leftist rainbow coalition. Trump’s railing against globalism is designed, in part, to resonate with this paranoia.
Experts say what Trump supporters call globalism is actually just Western ideals. Globalism is how America leads—by spreading capitalism and democratic institutions across the globe.
But much of the rest of what passes for “globalism” is actually the extraordinary spread of Western ideals of political and economic freedom. For example, another word for “free trade” is “capitalism,” one of the West’s great contributions to the world. If this is globalism, let us make the most of it.
The Economist argues globalization benefits workers by lowering the cost of consumer goods while putting more money in American pockets. The economy would be worse off without globalization. Protectionism would ultimately cost Americans more money while saving very few jobs.
The annual cost to American consumers of switching to non-Chinese tyres after Barack Obama slapped on anti-dumping tariffs in 2009 was around $1.1 billion, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. That amounts to over $900,000 for each of the 1,200 jobs that were “saved”.
Openness delivers other benefits. Migrants improve not just their own lives but the economies of host countries: European immigrants who arrived in Britain since 2000 have been net contributors to the exchequer, adding more than £20 billion ($34 billion) to the public finances between 2001 and 2011. Foreign direct investment delivers competition, technology, management know-how and jobs, which is why China’s overly cautious moves to encourage FDI disappoint.