[jameshart]

The idea that globalism is an attempt to 'help' poor countries needs evidence to support it - I think there are plenty of ways in which globalism has benefitted wealthy countries at the expense of poor ones. In fact, the idea that globalism is 'an attempt' to do something, i.e. a conscious agenda to change the world, rather than just something which just emerged out of commercial activity, also seems a bit of a leap.

[ptaipale]

I think that we can once again be reminded that there is only one thing that is worse for poor nations than being exploited by global capitalism.

It's that poor nations are not exploited by global capitalism.

Then you can look up TED talks by Hans Rosling, and the follow-up reports for UN millennium development goals.

[jameshart]

right - there have been massive improvements in poverty in developing countries as a result of globalization. But that doesn't mean that Rosling-style improvements in life outcomes for people in the poorest nations were a goal of globalization; just a side effect. And benefits have accrued to wealthy nations too - cheap gas, cheap electronic devices, expanding investment markets. If policy supporting globalization had a goal it was probably more driven by those outcomes.

[ptaipale]

The unpleasant, unintended side effects of many "good" policies often surprise activists: protectionism and orthodox equality leads to decreased trade and removes incentives to increase productivity. This is a surprise to many people who then try to deny the existence of these side effects because they think they are only advocating "good" policies so the bad results are someone else's fault.

The pleasant, unintended side effects of globalist capitalism and economic liberalism are in fact not that much a surprise. Just look at the track record. Is it bad if good outcomes follow as unintended consequences?

Arbor ex fructu cognoscitur.

[Karellen]

Can you give a few examples of poor nations that are not being exploited by global capitalism?

[ptaipale]

Zimbabwe, North Korea. And of course many poor African nations where global capitalism doesn't operate that much and which are therefore largely in a subsistence economy.

Venezuela wasn't a poor nation to start with, but is becoming one in its urge to fight global capitalism.

[maxerickson]

North Korea and Cuba have been pretty well isolated from capitalism.

You could also look at countries in Africa that don't have extensive resource extraction (compared to those that do).

[SimbaOnSteroids]

As an asside North Korea does ship workers abroad to work as slave laborers.

[ptaipale]

Partially that scheme seems to be an attempt to engage DPRK in some kind of dialog to prevent an unstable dictatorship with nuclear weapons and a lot of artillery that can reach Seoul from causing bad damage.

But given that utilising or even tolerating slave labourers on the ground in democratic nations is such a shameful thing, it might be better to actually let DPRK be completely isolated from global economy and not allow any of these arrangements. Even if that results in more misery for the people in DPRK.

[SimbaOnSteroids]

iirc a bulk of these workers find themselves in Russia or China so hardly on democratic lands.

If you know of other instances of this that'd be a fascinating topic to read up on.

[flerchin]

Zimbabwe, Venezuela, North Korea.

[raverbashing]

India and China beg to differ