[thomassmith65]

Globalization was fantastic actually. America is only a few weeks away now from discovering how wrongheaded complaints about it were.

The actual problem is inequality, but inequality in right/libertarian thought is supposed to be good. So they * reached for a more comfortable explanation involving 'the other': globalists!

* 'they' is a discourse smell, so I will cite some examples: Glenn Beck, Pat Buchanan, Alex Jones, Steve Bannon, Viktor Orban, etc.

It has been annoying, for almost two decades, to witness the success of anti-globalization propaganda.

Economic inequality surely is contributing to depression in young people. Exposure to wonderful people, products, opportunities and ideas from all around the globe is not.

[Jensson]

> Economic inequality surely is contributing to depression in young people. Exposure to wonderful people, products, opportunities and ideas from all around the globe is not.

Those two are linked though, exposure to competition from all around the world is the problem you are talking about. You can't have both these opportunities and avoid competition.

I do think this freedom is a good thing, but I also understand it leads to inequality. That is why globalism was typically a right wing position since it helps the rich.

[PleasureBot]

Globalization is not the cause of economic inequality. The cause is political and cultural. Since the late 1970's, the top 1% of income earners (> ~$800,000 in income) in the United States has captured 60% of economic growth as income. The top 10% (> ~$200,00 in income) of earners captured 90% of the growth. The bottom 90% of the population has captured only had 10% of the growth in wages over that time period. The US now has might have the highest income inequality that we know of in all societies, present and historical. For example, India from 40 years ago that had a strict caste system and half the population was illiterate was more egalitarian the the current day US. Apartheid South Africa was more egalitarian than the current day US.

This started in the late 70s as that is when we started dropping the progressive tax on high income earners extremely low. This incentivized senior managers at companies, who set their own compensation, to set higher and higher wages for themselves, capturing most of the economic growth of the past 50 years.

Whether you think this type of inequality is justified or not, its worth looking at closely because it is hard to imagine an economy or society continuing to function indefinitely with such extreme difference in outcome between different social groups.

[thomassmith65]

No nation on Earth is entirely isolationist.

No nation has absolute free trade.

The question is what to aim for.

All else being equal, globalization is better.

[fullshark]

OP's comment says globalization comes with dark sides, that's it. Do you disagree? I think people are angry because so much of the discussion of it among people who have enjoyed the fruits of globalization is essentially to silence any talk of that fact and point to things that ultimately are not a crucial part of a better life (ability to buy cheap junk mostly).

[thomassmith65]

Sure, I agree that free trade can have downsides.

The comment claims that 'globalisation' is depressing young people. Well, that's a hypothesis, not a universally agreed-upon fact. And the assumption that it's agreed-upon is probably a product of the propaganda I complained about.

There's a stronger case for globalisation making youth happier, on the whole, and other factors (such as economic inequality) making youth sadder.