Is globalism undemocratic?

[Hamilton321]

I am a liberal but I believe that the policy of globalism which the Democratic party has been full-heartedly promoting more and more over the decades has gone too far. I don't think we should close our borders and I believe in free trade, but I think that globalism has been taken to a ridiculous level. Small business and small towns are really feeling the pain and I think it is starting to drive people away from the Democratic party. We should have a balance of industry, trade and agriculture.

Globalism is basically a complete focus on trade and nothing else, which benefits very few people, all of them international corporations. Trump's policy is also very bad, his is all industry and no trade. I did not vote in 2016, partly because I saw the economic policies of Trump and Hillary as unsound. Hillary's would lead to us being even more in debt, relying more on imports from countries such as China, Mexico, and Bangladesh and eliminate even more working class jobs. Trump's policies are going to increase the national debt and deficits due to his low taxes, while simultaneously increasing defense spending, and the cost of his wall. He will take away the protections for the working and middle class, and will lead to a sluggish economy due to lack of stability. It will be a lot like late 19th century economic policy if Trump gets his way.

Now I am getting back to my main point, which is that I think we need an alternative to both Trump's policy of going back 120 years economically and the overboard international corporation and banker friendly form of globalism. So I was wondering whether other people agreed with me that the Democratic policy of globalism has gone too far and that we need an alternative other than paleo-conservative radical economic policy, and if you do then what would be the details of your alternative system.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Globalism has been an improvement over the previous system of unregulated IMF Loans and then having disastrous economic policies enacted, for the most part globalism has overall grown the world economies,
However there have been bad actors in Globalism, like the financial crisis, money laundering, tax havens, exploitation and debt slavery. But it has also brought industrialization and jobs to many places its been rather un-even, chaotic and under reported

Probably better off like that nobel prize economist suggested that settle on a world Tax rate for business at 20% for a start
Then we can look at other regulations

 

[Kozmos]

Globalism is very democratic. You vote everyday with your dollars.

 

[Hrothbern]

Globalism has been an improvement over the previous system of unregulated IMF Loans and then having disastrous economic policies enacted, for the most part globalism has overall grown the world economies,
However there have been bad actors in Globalism, like the financial crisis, money laundering, tax havens, exploitation and debt slavery. But it has also brought industrialization and jobs to many places its been rather un-even, chaotic and under reported

Probably better off like that nobel prize economist suggested that settle on a world Tax rate for business at 20% for a start
Then we can look at other regulations

In general yes
Globalism increased the total pancake, and the pancake per capita of most countries,
but it also offered opportunities for the very rich/powerfull to cream off part of the pancake, which is still in an accelerating process, solidifying the abusive mechanism, and increasing inequality.
governments at varying levels of regulation mere bystanders.
And yes, we need global regulations to contain it to less socially toxic levels.
But that will not be enough to bring back for example the local cookie factory, supplying 50% of the jobs of the local village in a rural area. Because that is driven by non-globalist country level factors of company consolidation-specialisation-automation-economy of scale and technology development. To counter that you would need another kind of economical structure.

There are currently approx 600 million TEU container movements per year of 33 M3 each (600 million fully filled 20 foot container equivalents).
When that would be divided equally between 6.6 billion people => each of the inhabitants of the world causes a "trade" of 5.0 M3 per year.
As we are talking here on the forum, most of us in well developed, rich countries, YOU, your friends, etc.... EACH of US causes on average a multiple of that 5 M3 "global trade" per year, direct or indirect.
https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch3en/conc3en/worldcontainertraffic.html

It is also driven by consumerism to a high degree and our desire to have a choice, whereby we vote with our wallet.
If you drive on the motorways in South-Germany, you literally see the madness of our desire to have a choice between dozens of kinds of mineral water we prefer: you see trucks with French and Belgium brands going West-East, trucks with Austrian, Swiss mineral water going East-West,etc, etc.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_europäischer_Mineralwassermarken#Schweiz

EDIT:
I think that there is a balance between what you can aim for through the election democratic process towards regulations on the one hand and the voting with your personal choices and your wallet on the other hand.

 

[Yeekim]

First of all, there is no alternative to globalism, unless we go full luddite, and I doubt that's a realistic option.
Technologies enabling global trade and global travel exist and they are profitable, hence they'll be used.
You can't rewind time - unless a global disaster sends us all back to pre-industrial age.

Is it undemocratic? Well, as the number of total votes/stakeholders that weigh in on any issue increases, so obviously weight of a single voter/stakeholder diminishes.
That does not imply deficit of democracy though, it's just mathematics.
Proper use of principle of subsidiarity helps to alleviate negative effects of that.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Not intending to lead this thread astray, but when did globalism become a word that sane people use ?
We used to talk about globalisation, but I never heard about "globalism" before I heard about Alex Jones.

 

[Zkribbler]

You vote everyday with your dollars.

That's a plutocracy!

 

[Lexicus]

We should have a balance of industry, trade and agriculture.

The 19th century called, they want their weird economics back

 

[Arwon]

Everybody in this thread seems to just know what "globalism" means already, and be talking this weird gibberish language as a result... and I feel like I just had a stroke

 

[Lexicus]

I don't understand what he means by 'globalism' either.

 

[Yeekim]

Tbh, I didn't catch the (possible?) difference between "globalism" and "globalisation" when I replied to OP.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Not if everyone votes for it.

/thread

 

[warpus]

Globalism is not a form of government and has nothing to do with democracy.

 

[sophie]

So...you believe in open borders and free trade but...you also don't? I don't really understand your position.

 

[Lohrenswald]

there is no "globalism", but there is globalisation

 

[Hygro]

Yes, the nature of changing the rules through trade agreements such that countries can't use policy to mitigate environmental and labor harm without being punished for being anticompetitive is undemocratic.

 

[Hrothbern]

Yes, the nature of changing the rules through trade agreements such that countries can't use policy to mitigate environmental and labor harm without being punished for being anticompetitive is undemocratic.

That depends on the FTA. The recent Canada-EU FTA does contain environmental conditions: http://international.gc.ca/trade-co...erciaux/agr-acc/ceta-aecg/ea-ee.aspx?lang=eng

"Canada’s broad environmental objectives in negotiating trade agreements are: 1) to preserve Canada’s ability to protect the environment; 2) to promote mutually supportive trade and environment objectives; 3) to improve the allocative efficiency of resources with the aim of generating positive environmental impacts; 4) to strengthen environmental governance; and 5) to support efforts to address international environmental challenges that affect Canada’s environment, economy, and health. (Further information on Canada’s commitment to sustainability can be found in the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy for Canada at www.fsds-sfdd.ca.)"

"The Government of Canada has committed to conducting Environmental Assessments of all trade negotiations through a process that requires interdepartmental collaboration and public consultations. This process focuses on the likely economic effects of trade negotiations, as well as their likely environmental impacts in Canada. The 2001 “Framework for the Environmental Assessment of Trade Negotiations”Footnote3 (the “Framework”) details this process, and was developed in response to the Cabinet Directive on Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program ProposalsFootnote4. Detailed guidance for applying the Framework is contained in the Handbook for the Environmental Assessment of Trade NegotiationsFootnote5 (the “Handbook”). The Framework provides a process and methodology for conducting the Environmental Assessment (EA) of a trade negotiation. It is intentionally flexible so that it can be applied on a case-by-case basis according to the nature of the agreement".

 

[Lexicus]

Yes, the nature of changing the rules through trade agreements such that countries can't use policy to mitigate environmental and labor harm without being punished for being anticompetitive is undemocratic.

In theory it could be democratic if those supranational rules were subject to some sort of democratic process.

 

[Hrothbern]

In theory it could be democratic if those supranational rules were subject to some sort of democratic process.

Governments that include immaterial value conditions (like environmental) in FTA's because they were elected because of such values, and agree a deal, are imo, by lack of something better, acting in a good enough democratic way.

For now we have no better,
and I am glad it happens as long as some countries keep holding to such value conditions and do not condemn such value conditions as "red tape", like for example the US/Trump and recently May in the spring this year condemning the EU "red tape" in profiling the UK in the UK-India FTA pre-negotiations. The EU-UK FTA struggle has also to do with the EU not getting feeble knees and sticking to her "red tape" values.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Good to see that bunch of well informed people are trying share their opinions here.

Globalism is a group of ideologies that advocate the concept of globalization.