[Lazare]

> Either the educators didn't know this would happen or it was a campaign to sell the public on the idea.

Globalisation has resulted in the greatest reduction in human poverty to have ever occurred. The benefits are not uniformly distributed, and there are losers and winners, the losers deserve protection, and the shortcomings should be decried and fixed, sure.

But to conclude from the fact that some migrants in one country are having a rough time that globalisation as a whole is a negative thing is errant nonsense; the equivalent of stubbing your toe and deciding that the entire concept of furniture was a mistake.

The mere fact you're posting on here makes it clear you're part of the global 1%. As such, you have the luxury of preferring policies that avoid making you uncomfortable. Others face harsher constraints.

[RobertoG]

To conclude that globalization is a positive thing for the poorest people of the planet without qualification is also errant nonsense.

The greatest reduction in human poverty is due mainly to China, where globalization has been managed in order to develop the country.

The standard narrative is that this is not necessary. Just open your markets and everything will be OK. Don't protect your industries, don't manipulate your currency, don't 'steel' 'intellectual property', etc and everything will work for the best.

That's obviously not true, but it's a line that keep being pushed.

[Avshalom]

I mean I guess define globalization because the thing immediately preceding it--colonial mercantilism--was just as global. That rise from poverty coincides with both the death of nominal colonialism and also frankly the rise of Soviet and Maoist communism and the CIA's banana republic crimes in Central and South America. Further "Free Trade" as usually used to characterize Globalisation still doesn't exist in any useful sense even in things like NAFTA which has free trade in the name.

[ShorsHammer]

> Globalisation has resulted in the greatest reduction in human poverty to have ever occurred

Correlation ≠ Causation. How can you so easily attribute one to the other? I'd argue advancements in science have done far more to alleviate poverty and suffering rather than lowered trade barriers.

It's a common theme worldwide that most of the gains from globalisation have gone to the elites while environmental damage has been externalised.

[edanm]

That's not a bad point IMO, and one that I often vaguely wonder about too. Just how much of the reduction in poverty is because of capitalism/globalization, and how much is because of improved technology?

I'm not sure I know the answer to that. Then again, I'm not sure it's so easy to separate out these things - capitalism almost certainly lead to more technology.