The Good and the Ugly Effects of Globalization | A World on the Brink

Dee Smith: Over the last 30 years, globalization
has connected our world in ways we could never have imagined. It’s brought about an incredible increase
in the movement of information, goods, money, people, and perhaps most important, labor. Globalization has fueled the economic growth
of our entire planet and brought nearly a billion people out of poverty, but it’s also
created enormous problems. In this episode of A World on the Brink, we’ll
explore modern economic globalization, looking at what drives it and exploring some of its
consequences. We’ll see how it was a vehicle to expand economic
influence, a way to build markets for Western goods, and a means of preventing war. We’ll also look at globalization as a method
by which the West attempted to instill its laws and its values around the world and how
one nation in particular has turned the tables. James Hollifield: It’s not as if the world
was not globalized. It’s not as if the world wasn’t interdependent. From the Roman Empire to the present, we’ve
always had interconnectedness. Edward Goldberg: So, globalization is not
new. One could almost say globalization is a political,
economic, cultural type of evolution. When the Spanish conquered Mexico, they discovered
the tomato. The conquistadors brought it back to Spain. So, from Spain, it gets to Italy. The first reference of it in Italy is not
as a food. The first reference of it in Italy is a letter
from Cosmo de Medici, where he’s using it as a table decoration, which is just wonderful. Eventually, it becomes sauce. And eventually, it becomes the classic Italian
food. But I mean, what better example of globalization
is there than this tomato from the Andes Mountains? The early 1990s was this halcyon period of
globalization. The war had come down. The Soviet Union fell. We were looking at a borderless wall. Technology was not a threat to jobs. It was this new area of just unbelievable
change in our lives with technology. Christian Michel: We believed that globalization
would abolish the concept of borders, ethnicities, and so on. That is reappearing, and that is a real danger. EG: And no one at a time realized the downside
of globalization. No one realized about the fact that globalization
also means economic contagion. Globalization also could lead to global warming. Globalization also is an impetus for terrorism. No one thought of this in the 1990s. Micah Zenko: So, if you look at support for
globalization in different parts of the world, in China, and India, in much of Latin America,
and lots of Southeast Asia, they are wildly active and enthusiastic participants. In other countries, there are portions of
the population who have not done as well. Edward Alden: In fact, I think a lot of the
countries that in a way were late joiners were enthusiastic about the benefits they
received. If you look at the last two decades, there
has been no period in human history when more people were pulled out of poverty than that
last two decades. Most of those were in China and obviously
in other developing countries. So, I think, in fact, a lot of these countries
see themselves as the winners from the liberal international economic order even though they
didn’t set the rules. DS: Globalization has waxed and waned over
the centuries, but this current phase is something very different. And it’s brought some unexpected results. This is not globalization of one single political
force with an international reach. Its globalization forged by numerous sovereign
states who all wanted the same thing after the end of World War II– access to trade. The defining belief of modern globalization,
coined by 19th century economist David Ricardo, is that if goods are produced wherever they
can be made most cheaply, there will be an overall increase in economic wealth. In other words, cheapest production will benefit
all. To see the transformative effects of globalization
in action, let’s look at one nation that, as late as 1980, was economically isolated
from much of the world. A poor nation, where most of the labor was
agricultural, and nearly 90% of the population lived in extreme poverty. Today less than 7% of its population lives
in poverty, and it’s one of the world’s largest economies. If you want to understand the story of how
globalization can transform nations, you have to understand the story of China. JH: The one place that will determine where
we will be in 10 years, it’s going to be happening in Beijing. It’s going to be happening in China. The Chinese are going to be in an increasingly
powerful position. You How they exercise this new-found power
will determine not only the fate of the region that they live in, whether they’re going to
continue to be very aggressive in inserting their authority in East Asia, and whether
that’s going to lead to greater conflict, that’s going to depend very much on the leadership
in Beijing. Stewart Patrick: This is Asia’s century. Throughout the region, there is overwhelming
confidence that the motor of the global economy is west of the International Date Line. Scott Malcomson: Right now, you have China,
most of the east and South Asian states, Russia– these are all state-led economies basically. SP: China may slow, but other countries in
the region may pick up the slack, not least in India, which has been growing by leaps
and bounds recently. JH: If there was ever a time when the what
we used to call sort of the advanced industrial world– we can’t really call it that anymore–
or the Western democracies– if there was ever a time when the Western democracies,
the United States in particular, could really bestride the globe and call the shots, as
we did in our part of the world in the 1950s and 60s, those days are over. DS: From the start of the 19th century, the
British, French, Japanese, Germans, and Americans all fought over China. The authority of the Chinese imperial government
was eroded. And the people’s defining belief that Chinese
civilization was a superior one was called into question. In 1949, Mao’s People’s Republic bought a
new stability. But over the following decade, his attempts
to transform a huge population of peasant farmers into an industrialized workforce proved
ruinous. The massive social and economic dislocations
that followed resulted in an economic decline and a famine that killed somewhere between
30 and 60 million. Conditions began to change in the 1970s, as
China became more open to the outside world. But it is only in the last three decades that
the Chinese have developed a new attitude towards trade and mobilized their huge population
for real economic productivity. The speed and magnitude of China’s economic
growth has been on a scale never before seen. And ultimately, it has changed far more than
just its economic status. Admiral Patrick Walsh (Ret.): In the words
of the Chinese, it’s a century and a half of shame. So, after 150 years, they feel that their
time has come. And for many years, they were following the
guidance of hiding their capability and biding their time. SP: Used to be called a Pinochet argument,
that first you have to have a strongman to basically be able to get the economics right,
and then gradually you would liberalize. The ability of the Chinese Communist Party
to make significant decisions has allowed the country to focus simply on making money
as opposed to having civil and political rights. SM: When, after 1989, China entered into the
international economy, it wanted to– a very high proportion of its citizenry was still
employed in agriculture, which was not the growth industry. And so, it needed– in order to take advantage
of the inexpensive nature of its labor, and to insert it into the international system,
it needed to be possible for labor to move to larger cities. But at the root, the Chinese labor system
was still based in villages. And the city residence system quickly started
breaking down. DS: In the last decade and a half, China has
faced a complex problem– how to achieve the maximum economic growth, while maintaining
the Communist Party’s social and political control. This has not been an easy problem to solve. In effect, China has struck a deal with its
vast population. Continue to submit to authoritarian rule and
continue to get richer. To maintain stability and control, the Chinese
government has to continue to deliver on this deal, but growth has created challenges. Chinese wages have risen, and they are no
longer the lowest cost producers. China is pricing itself out of the export
market. Their reliance on controlling imports and
subsidizing exports, combined with the massive debt fueled construction boom, has created
what many economists believe is an unsustainable bubble, the potential collapse of which poses
a threat to the entire global economy. In light of these issues, it looks as though
China is veering towards more aggressive tactics. EA: China’s trade strategy is very mercantilist
in really the sort of classic way of trying to promote exports and restrict imports in
various ways. SM: They want to keep control of what’s going
on in their cities, because that’s the key to their own power. So, you now have a situation in China, where
you have an unsustainable system of residency and social welfare, combined with local very
large, very powerful urban political economic machine. The markets to which China has traditionally
exported in order to build its own middle class are, as far as they say, starting to
try and cut themselves off. Essentially, the argument being that globalization
meant that the American, the German, the wherever working class in the industrialized world
and lower middle class, middle class in the industrialized world, essentially their wealth
went to China. EA: So, China, for a long time, has subsidized
and supported its successful export industries, a lot of them heavy industries like steel
or aluminum. You can take even something like solar panels,
which are not a heavy industry, but they’re reasonably commodified products. There are certain industries that, left to
their own devices in the world market, are not going to succeed. And if they go belly up, it’s going to cost
jobs, may threaten national security. SM: If indeed the politics of the developed
world begins to put its barriers back up, and say, we’re going to develop for ourselves,
we’re going to create some sort of semi autarchy and isolate our political economies a bit,
so that we can get our middle classes producing again, what happens to this middle class of
recent vintage of hundreds of millions of people in China who had depended on that? Those, to me, are the main reasons why the
Chinese situation is extremely fragile. DS: China also faces another kind of fragility. The historical one child policy, combined
with increasing life expectancy, means China is becoming a society where one working adult
will support two parents and as many as four grandparents. It turns the usual population pyramid on its
head and creates a situation we’ve never seen before, and one that may not be sustainable. But the social contract persists. Growth must continue, and China’s huge population
must be fed. This need is spurring China into a range of
new initiatives, as they continue to expand. The ultimate expression of this is the multi-trillion
dollar One Belt, One Road project, a 21st century recreation of the historic Silk Road. Samuel Cherap: China’s famous Belt and Road
initiative, One Belt, One Road, of course, goes right through both Russia and through
Central Asia, post-Soviet Central Asia. This is probably the biggest foreign policy
success. We should remember that the Soviet Union and
Communist China were essentially at war for several years in the late ’60s and early ’70s
and really hadn’t restored their relationship until the very end of the Soviet era under
Gorbachev. And that warming continued in the ’90s and
essentially they’ve built today a strategic partnership. APW: When you have a country like China come
in there and essentially say, we will give you all the lending that you need, all you
need to do is give us access to your natural resources. If you’re a government, which side are you
going to take of that trade? For countries that have been on the receiving
end of direct aid from China, they’ve quickly learned that they’ve stepped into something
that they want to step back from. So, my experience with the countries in the
Pacific was that when China makes an overture that they want to provide direct investment
into certain resources, what they don’t explain is that they’re bringing their own labor,
and that there are hauling everything out, and they’re taking it back to China. Helima Croft: When you have a country like
China come in there and essentially say, “We will give you all the lending that you need. All you need to do is give us access to your
natural resources.” If you’re a government, which side are you
going to take of tgat trade? I mean, China is a much more compelling offer. DS: After the Second World War, the Pacific
was described as an American lake, and it was policed unimpeded by US Naval forces. Today, things are changing, and China is being
much more assertive in its immediate neighborhood. And in response to this, the US is sending
very mixed signals about its commitment to the region. This is confusing for China’s neighbors, who
are traditional US allies, and who are suddenly having to contend with a new kind of China. Not knowing what the US will or will not do
in the region makes it difficult for them to engage in foreign policy, and so more and
more nations are hedging their bets. SP: In certainly the last few years, China
has been extraordinarily assertive. This has occurred in the South China Sea,
the East China Sea. You have a very volatile region. It’s growing very fast. And there’s uncertain and unresolved relationships
between China and its neighbors. APW: And they started to assert themselves
in ways that frankly shocked their neighbors. I see a distinction between the Communist
Party and the average Chinese. There’s 6,000 rocks, reefs, and shoals in
the South China Sea. To put that all at risk and to put all the
development that’s taking place with the growing middle class in China, seems to me to be a
real disconnect over an effort to use a nationalistic sort of tone to rally the country against
a threat that doesn’t exist. MZ: Now, the worry is that as China becomes
a more dominant militarily powerful and economically thriving country, that it will choose to go
to war with the United States. And the belief is that the declining power,
in this story, was the United States, will go to war with the rising power to assure
its position in the global order, that it will try to freeze its power relationship
with the other state. So that’s what people worry about. China and the United States have vast nuclear
weapons arsenals, so they can deter each other from using force against each other if they
perceive their country, their sovereign territory, or their government is at risk.. APW: I think the future of US and China relations
will depend on the strength of US leadership, and to be able to view that relationship as
a mature relationship that can withstand the ability to stay, to say no. DS: We’ve seen how globalization can change
the way an entire country operates. In the case of China, this first led to huge
economic growth, then more expansionist attitudes, and now more aggressive foreign policies. It has been said that China and the US have
a knife at each other’s throat. China has held a vast amount of US government
debt and the US has been a huge importer of Chinese produced goods. But China’s desire to exercise more control
over its geopolitical neighborhood may bring it into a more direct confrontation with the
United States, and it is not impossible that this could lead to war. So, while globalization has empowered many
Asian nations, China most of all, its effects have not always been positive. This is true of parts of Europe and also true
of the United States, where, for example, we are starting to see the effects of manufacturing
returning, but not jobs. Globalization has been blamed, along with
immigration, as the cause. And anger over these concerns has been accompanied
by a rise in populism and nationalism. But the rise of automation poses a threat
to employment that is at least as great, so how has globalization affected other parts
of the world? MZ: Some states have adapted to the pressures
of globalization better than others. The United States has done a fairly poor job
of adapting to globalization. Some other states have done quite a bit better. Germany in particular, which has become an
export driven society, invest tons and tons of money in retraining and educating its workforce
who are impacted by the forces of globalization. The United States, we don’t do so much of
that. SP: One goes from being am assembly line worker
in a high skilled plant to being a greeter at Wal-Mart. And it’s a demoralizing and dispiriting thing
to have to face. And it makes it a lot harder to get food on
the table for these folks. And one natural reaction to that is to say
globalization hasn’t worked. We really need to engage in more protection
for our domestic industries. And in this sort of a context, it’s very easy,
in a sense, to blame open trade as, in a sense, being very destructive to the basis, the core,
of the American economy. I think what that misses often is that much
of the dislocation is really the result of dramatic advancements in technology. EG: So, who has this been bad for? You know, it’s hard to tell the worker who’s
been laid off in North Carolina in the textile plant, where the textiles are now being made
in China, that OK, 300 million Chinese are no longer in poverty. It’s kept wages flat in the United States
for a certain percentage of society. Some economists have argued, yes, wages are
flat, but there’s also super benefits we don’t see when we say wages are flat. We’ve basically been in a period of deflation. Plus, you’ve had all this new technology,
partly due to globalization, like the iPhone and all these things that just make human
living easier. Well, from 1990 to now, to 2017, we’ve lost
approximately 31% of our manufacturing workforce. OK. That sounds horrible. But at the same time, our manufacturing output
has increased by 71%. That’s not globalization, that’s automation. DS: Globalization is not just about the production
of goods. It is also about the movement of people. And while immigration has always taken place,
there is a marked difference today. Cities like London, Houston, or Paris are
more diverse than they have ever been. In all the places it is happening, the scale
and scope of immigration today is creating a split between those who embrace immigrants
and those who react vehemently against them. And like the other | of globalization, immigration
is increasingly and dramatically affecting politics. More political leaders appealing to the mainstream
use the fear people have of losing their livelihoods to immigrants to stoke the fires of intolerance
and thus to gain political capital. Professor Lord Robert Mair: So, Britain has
a very long history of receiving immigrants. Many parts of our cities have very divergent,
very diverse communities. I don’t think that that in itself has been
a major problem, but I think there is a growing feeling that somehow there are more and more
immigrants and less and less what one might say indigenous British people. EG: And we know in the United States one of
the reasons we’ve been able to have this dynamic culture is because of the influence of immigrants,
the confluence of different thinking, challenging different cultures, challenging us, have propelled
us. We look at who’s doing– Many of the founders
of our high-tech companies– from Andy Grove at Intel, an immigrant from a Hungary 40 years
ago, To the Google boys today. Virginia Gerrard: In small countries that
maybe only have a population of five, seven million people, if you have 200,000 people,
half a million people, a million people come in, it really will change the way it is. On the other hand, we don’t live in isolation
anymore. Nowhere in the world is isolated anymore. It’s a globalized world. And that’s what a globalized world looks like. PLRM: I think it’s interesting that our children’s
generation are much more at ease with this. They’re much happier and much more relaxed
with the fact their school friends are from all sorts of different backgrounds. So, I think it may be any kind of feeling
of resentment of immigration may be reducing– I would guess, is reducing rather than increasing. DS: The combination of an economic downturn
and increased unemployment creates an instability that can upend politics. People have increasingly lost faith in their
leaders. And although they don’t know why things aren’t
working, they do know that they want change. So, in country after country, we are seeing
a vote against the establishment. Months before Trump was elected, a political
earthquake took place in the United Kingdom with the Brexit vote, when a narrow majority
opted to leave the European Union and threw the government and the country into disarray. But how conceptually connected are Brexit
and the election of Trump? PLRM: The reasons that so many people voted
to leave the European Union in the UK are probably split into two. What was not widely understood in central
government, particularly in London, was the feeling all around the country of a malaise,
of a dissatisfaction. Ever since the global financial crisis in
2008, many, many people around the country have not seen any change in living standards. Some have seen a reduction in living standards. Very few have seen salaries rise. Many have seen resources cut. All kinds of really quite serious measures
had to be taken as a result of the global financial crisis. And whilst that did not seriously affect many
people living in the metropolis, living in London, and some of the other big cities in
the country– they benefited from globalization and from all the kind of things going on around
the world– many, many people outside those communities saw no change. And a referendum, which is a dangerous thing
to have, is a very easy mechanism for expressing dissatisfaction. But a vote against was effectively a vote
against the government. Gordie Greig: I think there was a disgruntlement
and a sense of distaste over the way politicians run their policies, which didn’t seem to connect
with what are now called the just about managing, as Mrs. May calls them, ordinary people. And that was a political earthquake. But it was a wake up call for people to realize
that there was something going on which was beyond the shores of our island. We’ve seen this in America with Trump. And the disconnect between politicians and
people is something which has thrown everything up in the air and caused us to refocus. PLRM: When communities get dissatisfied–
and history has shown us over and over again, it’s very easy to blame outsiders. It’s very tempting and very easy to blame
foreigners. And so, a large part of the Brexit vote in
favor of leaving the European Union was people who had a sort of uneasy feeling, that their
malaise was somehow to do with foreigners, to do with immigration. And indeed, immigration figures have shown
quite clearly that the numbers of immigrants have been going up and up over the last decade
and more, but the prosperity of the country has been going up in parallel with that, so
that nearly all of the immigrants bring with them economic prosperity for the country. And so, if you’ve got a malaise anyway, and
then you’re combining that with a resentment of the fact that these sorts of things– it’s
more difficult to get your children into local schools, more difficult to get hospital appointments,
and you see that there are a lot of foreigners that have settled, then you’re even more likely
to vote for Brexit. GG: It was a by-election about the dissatisfaction
of the people in Britain with the political process, particularly connected to Europe. And it led to some extraordinary claims and
counterclaims over money, over laws. The most astonishing was Michael Gove, who
is here one of our leaders in the Leave campaign, former Lord Chancellor, former education minister,
who said, experts are not what we need. For me, the last person who said something
about experts not being needed was Mao. There was something extraordinary, toxic,
and divisive about the tone of the debate, which led to our country deciding– and we
have to accept it, that we’re going to leave Europe. DS: But is dissatisfaction with government
and wage stagnation the full story? There is increasing evidence that Brexit is
not only about globalization, economics, or unemployment, but also about long standing
cultural forces that have caused a large part of the English population in particular to
want to live in a country that is identifiably English. Just as in the US, regions of the UK can be
characterized by very different attitudes. And here is where the stories in the UK and
the US start to converge. In the latter decades of the 20th century,
the Democratic Party in the US seized the opportunity it saw in the growing population
of black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American voters, and grabbed onto the politics of identity,
allying themselves with what was sometimes called a rainbow coalition. As the Democrats gave up their claim to the
white working class’s loyalty, the Republicans made a pitch for and won their support, only
to then betray their interests in favor of policies benefiting the business classes. And in the late 20th century, the politics
of both left and right entered into a period of defining what a politically acceptable
discourse was, leaving the white working class feeling silenced and disregarded. This triple blow has had several devastating
effects. JH: What was happening in societies in Europe
in the wake of the Industrial Revolution– tremendous amount of alienation, spike in
suicide rates– does that sound familiar to you? Did the European societies manage those centrifugal
forces? Did they keep them under control? Were they able to prevent them from leading
to conflict? They did not. If we repeat those mistakes, if we don’t manage
our societies well, that are going through rapid change, if we lose the American middle
class, if we see tremendous and growing inequality, and you have more and more larger numbers
of angry people living on the margins of society, those are things we have seen before in history. And if we don’t manage these changes well,
if we don’t take care of people in our society, we’re heading potentially for another train
wreck here. MZ: Since 9/11, the suicide rate has increased
by a third, from nine and 1/2 per 100,000 per year to 13 and 1/2 per 100,000 per year. We don’t know exactly why this is, but we
think it has something, again, to do with opioids and exposure to globalization. And this is, I would say, a national security
threat that American political leaders, and certainly national security leaders, don’t
really talk about. And we need to recognize it and try to grasp
the severity of it. DS: In recent research, political scientist
Jonathan Guest says he has found evidence that the white working class not only feels
it has lost its perceived presence at the center of US culture, but that it has been
told it is no longer relevant, nor even valid, and should be silent. This creates despair, but push despair far
enough and it becomes anger. Trump has become a white working-class symbol,
because he is the one who has returned the group to prominence in American politics and
who has given them a voice again. In his research, Guest found that 65% of white
Americans would consider supporting a nativist third party dedicated to stopping mass immigration,
providing American jobs to American workers, and stopping the threat of Islam. He notes that this is a politics of nostalgia,
and that it is at play in different forms in the US, the UK, and in Europe. When talking about the politics of nostalgia,
the first thing to note is that none of us realize how inaccurate our memories actually
are, both collectively and individually. Andrew Solomon: All human memory is false. There have been endless studies that have
looked at the physical structures of memory in the brain, and that have shown not only
how much selectivity there is in what we remember, but also how much distortion there is. Additionally, the first time you remember
something, you are actually remembering the thing. But by the hundredth time you remember something,
what you’re really remembering are the 99 other times. So, there is a process through which our memory
moves farther and farther away from the truth. That’s not to say that there is no such thing
as memory. That’s not to say that people don’t have an
accurate understanding some of the time of what their emotions were. But I think the fluidity of memory has to
be borne in mind. Jeremi Suri: So, nostalgia is a common phenomenon
that historians write about all the time. And every generation has its nostalgia, right? So yes, a lot of people in many societies
today look back to an earlier period of the 1950s. And it always is an element of politics. People always imagine a different world, and
they always feel they’ve left something behind. Those who moved to cities in the early 20th
century felt they had left behind this rural ideal. The whole way we depict cowboys, right? It was actually a dirty, grimy, difficult
life, but we have this nostalgia for the freedom of being a cowboy. So, the nostalgia is not new. Those who tend to be most nostalgic are those
who were on the older end of the political spectrum, which is to say they’re older, they’re
perhaps conservative in a certain way that reflects their demographic. And I think we’re seeing more power in nostalgia
today, because that demographic is more powerful. AS: The fact that our memory of the past is
imperfect doesn’t invalidate it. I think history can be a very valuable part
of how we come to understand ourselves. And one of the things that goes on in a period
of globalization is that the coherence of history seems to be disrupted. Because if the history of the United States
is a history that begins with the pilgrims and that goes on with all of these people
we think of as Americans right up to the present, there is a kind of through narratives that
make sense. As soon as we introduce large numbers of immigrants,
and people with various identities that weren’t previously tolerated, we’re bringing in elements
of chaos that don’t really fit with the history that came before them. The changes that have taken place more recently
and do not yet feel historical are the ones by which people are most intimidated. CM: Looking at the past, these people at the
extreme right and extreme left don’t have a vision of the future. They don’t even want to keep the present as
it is. They want to go back to a kind of golden age
of a 1950s. Now, a progressive president would have said,
let’s make America greater than she’s ever been. But no, it was, let’s make America great again. Let’s go back to the past. In this country, you have Jeremy Corbyn on
the left of the political spectrum, who says, let’s return to nationalizing the railways,
nationalizing banks. I mean, all these policies of the 1950s and
’60s– what about the future? But that is not what we have in mind, neither
the extreme right nor the extreme left. We are all going back to a kind of mythical
past, which is what a counter-revolution is about. DS: The idea that this is a nostalgia simply
for better economic times is a comforting one, as it suggests a complete resolution
through an improved economy, but that is a very reductive answer. In fact, this nostalgia seems to be fueled
by a complex mixture of identity, class, and economics. The question we need to ask is whether the
combination of identity politics and large population size exacerbates the politics of
division and dissension. There are no simple cures or simple solutions. Instead, there is a set of possible approaches,
each of which may be necessary but not sufficient, and each of which has drawbacks. AS: I think there’s more and more evidence
that different groups within societies have different interests. I think everyone wants peace and stability
and security and economic certainty. I think there are a lot of things that everyone
wants in common. But the world is very overpopulated, and what
there is available is not, in many ways, increasing. And so, I think the tension that comes around
competition for limited resources ends up defining a great deal of what happens. EA: I really do believe that economics drives
a lot of this. I think if people are doing well, if they
can earn a decent wage, if they can look after their families, I think they’re a lot more
tolerant of cultural change around them. I think it’s when they see it as competition,
when they see change that they believe leaves them worse off than they were before, and
then I think they’re inclined to look for scapegoats. And I think that’s when you get anti-immigrant
movements, I think that’s when you get anti-trade movements, because people see that their lives
are actually getting worse. They don’t necessarily understand all of the
different factors that are making their lives worse, but they’re looking for explanations. And they often latch on to the easier ones. And of course, there are successful demagogues
who are telling them, this is the source of your problem, and I think it can drive that
message home. DS: Change is now happening at a rate much
faster than our social and political structures can evolve to deal with it. Social and political experiments, like the
European Union, are overtaken by events before they are even fully put in place. And the mismatch between the pace of change
and the pace of governance is becoming more pronounced every year. PLRM: There are some interesting changes,
as we’ve seen in Europe, that 40 years ago or so when the small number of European nations
got together and said, let’s have essentially a trading community– 40 years or so, there
was a huge enthusiasm for what was the beginning of European Union. EA; The classic example in Europe, I think,
is the creation of the euro. So, the creation of the euro weakened a lot
of the flexibility of the weaker economies in Europe– Greece, Spain, Italy, and others–
to adjust to adverse economic conditions. The classic response if your economy is becoming
less competitive is to devalue your currency and make your goods and services relatively
more attractive in the world. With the creation of the euro, the periphery
countries in Europe can’t do that anymore. And that’s where I think you saw the European
crisis first start to play out. Roderick Greirson: It is inherently difficult. It seems for people with different lifestyles,
different ways of living, different beliefs, different customs– it’s very difficult for
them to move easily among each other. And this is not a phenomenon that’s noticeable
only in the West. I live in Fez in Morocco. I was speaking to a friend of mine, a very
close friend, and he said, as we stood on the balcony of the house and gazed out over
the medina, he said, it’s wonderful that you are here. And I’m so pleased that we’ve had a chance
to become friends, but I think I’d feel very differently about that if 36,000 of them suddenly
arrived in our medina. So, for Moroccans, it’s quite easy to accept
relatively small numbers of foreign visitors, because they don’t create waves of the sort
that disturb society as a whole. But if you begin to have larger numbers, and
if the people who have arrived begin to think that their own customs should be assigned
ever greater weight, then it does become difficult. AS: Well, the identity politics of the last
20 years have really proposed that each of us has many identities. It’s the narrative of intersectionality. So, someone can be, I don’t know, deaf and
gay and French and elderly. And all four of those identities are apposite. This is actually a bit of a modern revolution,
the sense of there being so many pieces to identity is a new one. I also think that in an earlier era, there
was a sense that whatever your identities were, aside from your age, they were going
to remain relatively stable. I think the pace of change itself has become
so rapid, in part due to technology, that people are overwhelmed by it, and in part
due to the relatively open borders that have characterized the liberal world order. And people have sense that their very innate
fundamental sense of themselves is unstable. JS: So, people still come from somewhere. We’re very attached as human beings, and I
think we always will be, to a sense of place. And so, I’m the child of immigrants. I define myself being born in the United States,
but also, I define myself as part Indian– my father was from India– as part of Russian
Jewish. Mother’s family is from Russia and they’re
Jews, right? So, all of that is part of who I am. And it’s very natural as human beings to
seek these identities that are attached to place. I don’t think that’s ever going to change. But I think we hold multiple identities at
the same time. So, everything I just said about myself is
how I think, but I also see myself as a global citizen. We have multiple levels of identity at the
same time. And I think actually what we’ve witnessed,
and what will continue to be the case, is that both our local and global identities
will become more and more accentuated and will in some ways, complement each other but
in some ways, be at odds with each other. But there’s nothing new about that. Humans always contain many identities in them
at the same time. AS: I think within an individual within a
society that these questions of identity are complicated in part by people’s perception
that the identities of other people undermine the stability of their own identities. So, when you look at the movement against
gay marriage, you think, OK, if you’re not in favor of gay marriage, don’t have a gay
marriage. Let it go. But in fact, the people who are opposed to
gay marriage keep saying that the existence of gay marriage somehow undermines the marriages
that they have. I think, on a global scale, there is a perception
that if you allow people from some Middle Eastern troubled spot to emigrate to Denmark,
that Denmark will stop being Danish. And the people who have an identity as Danes
feel like they themselves will lose that identity, that that identity will be undermined. Now, this is not a completely irrational point
of view. If Denmark were to welcome more Muslim immigrants
than it has Danish population, the character of the country would be profoundly transformed. So, I’m not saying that this is totally irrational
or groundless. I think it actually is grounded in reality. I just think that the way to deal with that
reality is by welcoming it and figuring out how to negotiate it, rather than trying to
cling to a kind of monolithic sense of identity, which is in every country in the world now
being undermined. CM: The common characteristics of populist
movements around the world, the anger of people around the world, is that they feel that this
change is going too fast, is uprooting them from their traditions. And with too many sort of influences, foreign
influences, that is changing their cultures, that is destroying their cultures. And you have this, of course, not only in
Europe and the fear of Americanization, but you have it very much in Russia. You have it in the Middle East, because that
is what all the anger in the Middle East is about. It is Western influences that is perturbing,
that is adorating the purity of Islam and the traditional way of life there, changing
the position of women, changing the position of men. AS: People always have nostalgia for the world
that existed behind them. Then the problem is that when you try to recreate
the thing you remember, you don’t recreate what you remember. You create something new. Recreating the past is an impossibility. In part, people’s memory of the past is usually
wrongheaded and confused. But even if it were right-headed and not confused,
social technology has changed. Personal style has changed. The law has changed. Time has changed us in so many profound and
fundamental ways. The inner workings of families have changed. Everything is in a state of flux. So, when you try to cling to something from
the past, what you actually tend to do is to create a stymied version of the present,
rather than a glorious resurgence of what came before. DS: It is needless to say that globalism by
definition is a big subject, but its effects are felt at a very local level, and those
effects are very specific. Within opinions on globalization, we see the
full range of human response– parochialism and broadmindedness, hope for a better world,
and fear and greed for ourselves, neo-tribalism and cosmopolitanism. It is not a simple question of good or bad,
or of nostalgia versus forward thinking. It is a reflection of the complexity of humanity
and of all our frailties and strengths. But two dangers have perhaps become clearer. One is the risk we have created by tying everything
together so tightly with technology, particularly with the technologies of communication and
of transportation of goods and of people. The other is whether human beings are really
engineered to live in mass societies like those of the modern world, or whether, when
faced with this, they will create new social networks, giving them tighter identities in
smaller groups, where they can find meaning and belonging. Today, we find ourselves clinging to narratives
that make us feel good, whether that is a desire to go back to a past we fool ourselves
into thinking we remember accurately, or a desire to keep pushing ahead with a globalizing
program of social and political change that is arguably no longer working. In the next episode, we look at a part of
the world where three continents and many cultures collide, the birthplace of the three
great monotheistic religions, and the site of much of today’s most violent conflict–
the Middle East.

81 thoughts on “The Good and the Ugly Effects of Globalization | A World on the Brink

  1. Give the gift of Real Vision to yourself or someone you know for only $99 (regularly $180) from now until the end of the year:

  2. Globalization is the future.

    Neither Trump nor Brexit nor Frexit can stop it.

    Collapsing the US DOLLAR is the first step.

    $23,000,000,000,000 in debt and rising.

  3. This Systems design is marginalizing and otherwise antagonizing too many people for it to remain a viable system for much longer …..putting aside the environmental costs proper!

  4. No borders on Western countries that give out free services for thousands of dollars a month where half the world population makes less than $3 a day that might presenting some problems

  5. Welch. Holenbech . Shang kie shechs wife while she was in N.Y city, General Chanalt. The commander of the flying tigers. Mow say dung heap was surounded by those of the synaguoge of saton. They that own comunisum and are those that destroy any thing moral and decent. Truth dont mater !!!! The jew world order will be a night mare !!!!

  6. Again, I can't believe there are people who pay to get such nonsense. Secondly, putting this out now is like a bakery giving away useless 2 yr old bread. Doing stuff like this comes from group think by folks that drank too much University cool-aid thinking that the structure they got from those 4-6 yrs actually matters in the real world.

  7. Globalization isn't Globalism. Trump , Brexit and the right wing are fighting against the globalism and the manace to the nation's sovereignty

  8. NOTICE: all the old rich white guys talking about we should embrace the immigration influx and join the globalization. All the while they are safely tucked away far away from the struggle of living in a dangerous neighborhood filled with illegals and they having been decades removed from having to compete in the workspace with the ultra low labor rates of the immigrants who they want to welcome more of.

  9. I think most people don't really understand what is globalization. Actulally globalization is the globalization of capitalism. Capitalism was a great success in democrate country. Capitalism is on purpose of profit.

  10. Excellent production and wonderfully informative.

    Nevertheless, I detected a certain emphasis in which Westerners in particular are portrayed as intransigent towards immigration which is on the whole beneficial and that we are clinging to outdated values against inevitable change. And there's probably some thruth in this.

    However, the extraordinary rate and type of immigration, tells another story in which it's not just colourful, fascinating and mind broadening culture that is being resisted, but one in in which we are to be subdued, our rights taken away and be subjected to what one could only be described as barbarism. As for the economic benefits, I'm wondering how people, many who have very few skills and are reliant on governement subsidies actually contribute economically.

    Even so I have very much enjoyed the series thus far and very much look forward to the rest of it.

  11. I don't mind globalisation, what's not to like? But I want globalisation to extend to making frigging corporations to pay their taxes and not hide their profits in tax havens. You listening to me Ireland and Holland?

  12. Once upon a time there were few lords and their serfs. The lords lived lavishly. Now the number of lords increased millions in number as well as their serfs who discovered they themselves want to be the lords too. Problem is the earth is still the same size.

  13. Biased and not based. One thing that's right is that the traditional core of Western countries is angry and wants out. Trying to pretend that youth will simply grow up to be more tolerant is foolish, many young people are suffering and they will figure out why for themselves. If the ruling class does not slow down globalization there will be war.

  14. This played out as Globalist Propaganda and the over use of the word Nostalgia angered me when what people really want is to retain their customs, cultures and traditions, these things are real and held sacred not some mislead false concept of a past that wasn't real. Patriotism, National Pride and Spirit and Unity of ones own countries population is strength… Diversity is weakness… Divid and Conquer as they say. We want to protect our ways of life, our past our history our culture our people and our homelands as all nations and races should. Be proud of who you are, your ancestry and where you come from and preserve it. The one size fits all doesn't work, and demographic replacement of European and most Western Nations is well under way. This is an evil agenda and your program comes across as being pro one world government, open boarders and the globalist agenda.

  15. Did Corbyn actually say he wanted to nationalise the banks in the UK?? Jesus, lucky that he got thumped in the last election, that would have been a disaster of biblical proportions.

  16. 37:00 I want everyone to notice that these globalists are completely comfortable with China having LITERALLY NATIONALIZED EVERYTHING, but they're upset about the US Simply Nationalizing the Rail Ways, which, lets be honest, REALLY need it.

    A train ticket from Miami to NYC is like $1000 or something RIDICULOUS and US Rail hasn't been upgraded in LITERALLY CENTURIES.

    US Infrastructure continues to, clog, rust, and fall apart but, Oh Yes, lets keep on this same path! For Gosh sakes, people in Michigan don't have running water and the roadways across the US are so traffic jammed it takes LONGER AND LONGER for everyone to commutte to work.

    I have to leave my house at 4am most days.

  17. Globalism: London is a minority white city. A major European capital is not European anymore. Let it sink in: Londonistan is real.

  18. In California, the massive immigration from Latin America has kept wages down and forced rents up. Both effects have put $millions into the pockets of agribusiness and real estate moguls.

  19. its not the best doc. I think its because the interviewees are not practitioners theyre theorists. CFR talking heads and other no-skin-in-the-game luvvies on a nice salary for nothing. I'll stick with Kyle Bass and people with risk. This is political material.

  20. “Only for people who believe in a turning ball with 1600km/h” centrifugal and gravity doesn’t exist!! “EARTH IS FLAT”!

  21. I like real vision. But This is a big piece of propaganda tho. All you have are people from think tanks like "council on foreign relations". This globalization has all been done on purpose. They want to deindustrialize the USA and make Communism mixed with capatalism a global standard. China is the model for the WORLD. That's why the IMF and world bank gave them so much money to build. When you force immigration on countries that dont need or want it. You create division within that society and it makes it easier for the powers that be to maintain control with so much in fighting. Just remember the UN, CFR, IMF, WORLD BANK, EU, want to tax you for breathing (carbon tax), censor your freedom of speech like china and destroy any culture or cohesion that a host nation has within its own borders.

  22. A lot of post-modern nonsense. These folks need integrate individualism into their point of view. Then observe the situation. The economy may have improved but has the town, city, country and world improved around us?

  23. Yet, no one can put two and two together re immigrants. Most believe immigrants were entering for the handouts and better jobs. What about bombing of their countries? What about Climate changes, leaving the immigrants' countries for reasons of drought and lack of food.

  24. So all these experts and intellectuals are basically useless, they sold America's tech, wealth and prosparity to our enemies, "BUT NOBODY SAW THIS COMING" yeah okaaaayyy, have fun getting your heads blow off, experts.

  25. RAND CORP – "Ye ye ye, lets give the [email protected]!s 60 trillion $, 80% of America's manufacturing base and tech along with I.P. and allow them to rob us blind while rebuilding the 4th R3!ch"
    America – "VVTF is wrong with you?"
    RAND COPR – "We are forward thinking"
    America – "No"
    RAND CORP – "Is it too late to pull back the Umbrella Corp ☂️ as our main face for the 4th R3!ch??, too soon? too late? get can we some annalists in here?"

  26. I’m getting tired of people talking about China like the country is some sort of wonder story, the fact is they came along when technology was thriving and international companies began investing in its infrastructure, technology brought about the rise of China and cheap labor, definitely nothing for the world to try to imitate unless people in first world countries want to work in sweat shops

  27. 42:32 Mister 🐭 whiskers should take a trip to the Middle east and promote his ideals to get a taste of, multiculturalism, on their streets =| that or the freedom camps of Chinaaaaa!!.

  28. 42:32 Mister
    whiskers should take a trip to the Middle east and promote his ideals to get a taste of, multiculturalism, on their streets =| that or the freedom camps of Chinaaaaa!!.

  29. I wonder how many of these woke intellectuals would be willing to walk the streets of the West Bank, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, North Korea, Qatar, Lybia, Syria, or preach their tolerance and perspectives there without a small army platoon? bunch of hypocrites that only care for them selves, feed them to the wolves.

  30. What do you mean nobody thought of the downside with globalization in the nineties? Are you saying politicians and bureaucrats are idiots not capable of logical thinking? Every single one of them?

  31. @R R We should put all these @$$holes on a ship and send them to the freedom camps of China :), give them a taste of multiculturalism 🙂

  32. americans will wake up…i think not gradually but a shock wake up…ok wont be great on a lot of sorry for the average family…but its coming…..this serires should be translated to russian and all southeast asian languages.

  33. I couldn’t but notice that many of the speakers (the ones clearly interviewing for a job on the CFR or Atlantic Council) are surrounded by a very impressive library of books. I can only conclude from their utterances that they have not read those books or the books are the wrong books. The detrimental consequences of globalisation on the west were entirely predictable. Indeed Adam Smith stated as much. ‘Rather interestingly, these issues were foreseen by the great founders of modern economics, Adam Smith for example. He recognized and discussed what would happen to Britain if the masters adhered to the rules of sound economics – what's now called neoliberalism. He warned that if British manufacturers, merchants, and investors turned abroad, they might profit but England would suffer. However, he felt that this wouldn't happen because the masters would be guided by a home bias. So as if by an invisible hand England would be spared the ravages of economic rationality. That passage is pretty hard to miss. It's the only occurrence of the famous phrase "invisible hand" in Wealth of Nations, namely in a critique of what we call neoliberalism.’ Chomsky.

  34. I think a key statistic there that most missed was that while manufacturing jobs went down 31%, overall manufacturing went up over 70%

    I honestly dont think globalized economies have been bad as far as goods and services go, more is produced at cheaper prices internationally every passing day.

    What this channel failed to cover is how wages remain stagnant while cost of living goes up with inflation, meanwhile everyone is becoming more and more encouraged to become creditors just to even survive or get ahead. This is just extracting the wealth built up in developed countries into corporate pockets.

    It's a lack of initiative and financial will to make sure everyone is provided for in developed countries, imagine if everytime they outsourced a job they provided a better job, reinvested the saved profits rather than what they did do which was temp labor and rentierism.

  35. School kids seem happy with mixed races and immigration?!!! Of course they do, They haven’t had to compete with them for a meaningful job yet. The animosity will come when they have to compete, millennial or no millennial.

  36. The US hypocrisy .. is amazing …
    Take Monroe Doctrine … that's American foreign policy being Assertive over its local south American neighbors … with countless regime change operations ( Covert Imperialism ) over the years … Bolivia being the latest conquest a month ago …
    Now you get the same Elites complaining when China is mildly assertive over its region !!
    For better or worse …The World has had it with the US uni-polar model !!

  37. Their last video was propaganda trash. I just came here this time to check the comments. Seems like this episode is trash too.

  38. War is the plague of the Earth as Gen Smedley Butler said war is a racket and he felt he worked for large corporations stealing other countries resources.

  39. Some of these defenders of globalism in the video seem out of touch with reality and basic human nature. Of course people are not just let other cultures come in and changes the societies/norms they have build up. Seduced by pretty ideals and their own self-image but lack the critical thinking required for an advisory role. AKA they're tools and hacks.

    Anything is toxic if it is not in moderation. That goes for globalism too.

  40. This video and the views expressed by these people is why people hate the Global Elites and what've they've done to Western European countries.

  41. 46:54. ‘People have always had nostalgia for the world that existed the generation preceding them’. Oh, did the generations of the renaissance and the enlightenment have nostalgia for the thousand years of dark age preceding their generations?

    What a cop out excuse. We have nostalgia when we know that the previous generations had a better social, economic, and political system.

  42. well done real vision, love how you got the globalists to just so openly admit their distain for the indigenous populations of the west and that the believe our saviours would be johnny foreigner… Now that the west is in decline do they double down or change tack?

  43. Watching this was sickening !! Plutocrats !!!
    Not a word on the corrupt banking sector and the fact it has NOT been reformed after the self-caused financial crisis …
    Point everywhere else but @ yourself for fault and causality !!

  44. The first analogy of a tomato is ridiculous, you can still maintain borders, nations and trade between nation without the globalists desire to destroy nations. It is the uniqueness of different cultures that allows for the trade of exotic products, ideas and food etc.

  45. All the usual cliches from an unselfaware elite that is isolated from the worst impacts of globalisation. These are the same sort of people that dismissed the predictions 60 years ago about the long term negative effects of mass immigration.

  46. I mean, yeah when we were dumb to the fact that we were giving them our intellectual property… I would be a millionaire as well. I am so glad we have a president that gives a f**k about his citizens and country. Period. Yes, strength from the US, Keep America Great. More sanctions!! Make the playing field level and fair… Especially, China. They need to start paying their fair share. Thankfully, we and China along with Russia are getting rid of the Old ways and creating a new banking structure, making the Dollar stronger. No more central banks and bankers!

  47. You may as well lie, after all that is what we are used to in the west. Go deeper, but no, that would not be politically correct. Your title is correct, it’s just a brief.

  48. The EU was broken from the start. As Martin Armstrong points out – they created a monetary union without assuming the individual nation's debts which meant each states debt were never put under central control. This mismatch has caused tremendous economic Instability. The globalists simply do not understand the effects of their creations. Notice how this whole series is in response to what Trump is doing. They are always behind the curve because they are not true thinkers. Their thoughts are isolated to their field of expertise. Trump saw the truth of globalism in it's totality. These folks simply do not understand the totality of what globalism has done.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *