> Although a big critique I have of Globalism is that the gains from trade are not evenly dispersed automatically so countries like the US really need to raise the top tax rate and increase (or at least not lower) redistribution otherwise you get high income equality.
I agree with that critique, though it may be a problem with this specific version of Globalism, not globalism itself.
But do you think there is more equitable distribution with mercantilism or protectionism? Why would that be? In those systems government officials choose who gets the benefits; you can't get them for yourself. Also, they tend to oppress less powerful countries - globalism's astounding record of raising people from poverty all over the world is absolutely unmatched. People take for granted the relative prosperity in China, India, Brazil, ... - nothing like it ever happened before.
> if the USA had continued to practices mercantilism post-WW2 then we wouldn't have complaints about the lack of manufacturing.
You assume this mercantilist government can effectively manage manufacturing, and that it wouldn't deteriorate, having no competition. Industry without competition tends to do that. Basically, enshittification is doing that intentionally.
With only 5% of the population the US would not have nearly enough manufacturing capacity to meet modern needs.
Finally, keeping people in manufacturing (how? by force?) would prevent them from taking the newer, higher productivity jobs that followed.
The US was much less wealthy - order of magnitude at least - in the 1950s (or whatever golden age people think of). You don't want to go back to that economy.
> The industrial plants in China would've never been built by US investment because that's literally handing money away to another country.
If it was handing away money, then why would someone invest in it? They invest because the investment generates returns, in this case massive returns that changed hundreds of millions of lives and provided wealth that was used to buy and invest in yet more things.
> I agree with that critique, though it may be a problem with this specific version of Globalism, not globalism itself.
Well, there's nothing about Globalism that enforces this so it's really a complaint about most if-not all Globalism.
> With only 5% of the population the US would not have nearly enough manufacturing capacity to meet modern needs.
Expand your borders to include say Canada or all of South America. The UK moved up the value chain into industrial jobs while delegating out the cotton farming to their North American _Colony_ (as well as their South East Asian colony).
> If it was handing away money, then why would someone invest in it? They invest because the investment generates returns, in this case massive returns that changed hundreds of millions of lives and provided wealth that was used to buy and invest in yet more things.
Sending over capital goods in exchange for future considerations is not a Mercantilism argument. The reason why somebody would invest in it is because they're a Globalist.
The reason why "we" switched from Mercantilism to Globalism is because it generates more growth but you can't use Globalism arguments in a Mercantilism framework unless you're making the argument to switch frameworks.
(Also Mercantilism is also causing income equality by having an underclass in your colonies to support a wealthier main land; but the mainland isn't going to be complaining about being poor).
I agree with that critique, though it may be a problem with this specific version of Globalism, not globalism itself.
But do you think there is more equitable distribution with mercantilism or protectionism? Why would that be? In those systems government officials choose who gets the benefits; you can't get them for yourself. Also, they tend to oppress less powerful countries - globalism's astounding record of raising people from poverty all over the world is absolutely unmatched. People take for granted the relative prosperity in China, India, Brazil, ... - nothing like it ever happened before.
> if the USA had continued to practices mercantilism post-WW2 then we wouldn't have complaints about the lack of manufacturing.
You assume this mercantilist government can effectively manage manufacturing, and that it wouldn't deteriorate, having no competition. Industry without competition tends to do that. Basically, enshittification is doing that intentionally.
With only 5% of the population the US would not have nearly enough manufacturing capacity to meet modern needs.
Finally, keeping people in manufacturing (how? by force?) would prevent them from taking the newer, higher productivity jobs that followed.
The US was much less wealthy - order of magnitude at least - in the 1950s (or whatever golden age people think of). You don't want to go back to that economy.
> The industrial plants in China would've never been built by US investment because that's literally handing money away to another country.
If it was handing away money, then why would someone invest in it? They invest because the investment generates returns, in this case massive returns that changed hundreds of millions of lives and provided wealth that was used to buy and invest in yet more things.