Globalismo não é o problema, e sim políticas internas

Como sempre, aprecio a visão do mundo do Globalist:

The fight against globalization - and the resistance to globalism - is at its heart a contemporary form of anti-intellectualism. That’s the core argument in this weekend essay on The Globalist.

Cheers,

Stephan Richter, Editor-in-Chief

Stop Blaming Globalization: Most Problems Are Homemade

Amidst many worries about globalization, suggestions for a constructive path forward. | By Arthur E. Appleton

Arthur Appleton is an Adjunct Professor of International Law at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS-Europe).

Stop Blaming Globalization: Most Problems Are Homemade

Amidst many worries about globalization, suggestions for a constructive path forward.

By Arthur E. Appleton 
The Globalist, February 16, 2020

Credit: xtock - Shutterstock.com

Takeaways

• The recourse to nationalism that is so temptingly offered by the populists does little to address the problem of – largely – domestic inequality.
• It is easier for politicians to blame “globalization” – instead of acknowledging the severe policy errors they have made at home.
• Both global prosperity and global progress depend upon a common understanding of how an interdependent world functions – economically, politically and socially.
• The fight against globalization and the resistance to globalism is at its heart a contemporary form of anti-intellectualism.

The move towards globalization made some believe that history is linear. This is certainly not the case.

Backlash against globalization

The continuing backlash against globalization, as well as the resulting retrenchment, which frequently takes the form of nationalism, demonstrates two facts: First, globalization is subject to setbacks. And second, the multilateral trade regime is both fragile and perhaps somewhat flawed. 

The backlash against globalization has globalists looking for pathways forward. This is all the more necessary as the dangers the world faces, both economic and political, are serious and growing. 

Mounting nationalistic tendencies in the United States, Russia, China, Brazil, Italy, Poland, Hungary, India, the Philippines and many other countries, are continuing to fragment the international consensus. This spread of nationalism is disrupting the established political and economic order. 

Trade and prosperity

Fragmentation of this consensus now threatens to destabilize the world and jeopardize the rapid economic growth and relative stability experienced since the Second World War. Bulwarks of stability, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), are under attack. So are other multilateral institutions.

At the core, though, the backlash against globalization is misdirected. In most cases, the primary reason for the electorate’s frustration is the inequality of economic opportunity within countries. 

Some wrongly blame this inequality on international and regional trade agreements. Some blame immigration. Others more correctly place the blame on lack of education, poor infrastructure, poor governance and a lack of access to capital. 

Nationalism is no solution

Regardless of the causes identified above, most people would agree that inequality of opportunity has marginalized large segments of the population in many countries. In Europe, the United States and even across Africa, inequality of opportunity has fueled immigration by the “have-nots” which, in turn, has fueled resentment and nationalism.

One important point that should be clear is that: The recourse to nationalism that is so temptingly offered by the populists does little to address the problem of – largely – domestic inequality. 

The inequality battle revisited

Even so, one question that warrants reflection is this: Where did the West go wrong in its journey towards a more globalized world and the resulting nationalism? 

Our political and economic leaders share much of the responsibility. They have not taken adequate steps to address the rising inequality of opportunity. 

In pursuit of their respective self-interests, they have also failed to establish an environment that would nurture satisfactory employment opportunities and improve governance. 

For politicians, long-term thinking has been overtaken by short-term political opportunism. It is easier politically for politicians to blame “globalization” – instead of acknowledging the severe policy errors they have made at home.

No short-term solutions for long-term problems

Unfortunately, there are no short-term solutions to redress these problems. It is particularly distressing that many of the problems Western societies are experiencing are due to failures in their educational systems. 

This cannot be due to a lack of money or wealth. Instead, it is due to a lack of proper attention to other issues, such as how we educate those born in disadvantaged circumstances. Another shortfall is the failure to properly educate prospective business leaders. 

Education always takes (too) long

Complicating the debate is the realization that any realistic solutions to educational issues, if properly defined and arrived at, take at least one generation to implement. 

Since most politicians are notoriously fixated on the short-term election cycle, they are unwilling to invest the necessary political capital to address mid- to long-term educational issues.

In addition to the standard courses in literacy, math and science, there is an urgent need for high school students from all walks of life to understand two core issues. The first is basic economics, and the second is civics – the rights, obligations and the theoretical and practical aspects of being a citizen in a democracy. 

High school students should graduate with knowledge of supply and demand, return on investment, gains from trade, comparative advantage, externalities and the tragedy of the commons. 

They should also have a basic understanding of the cornerstone principles underlying the international trading system (non-discrimination, transparency, etc.), as well as the rights, obligations and the philosophy underlying democratic regimes. 

Too focused on business as usual

For business school students, the bar should be set even higher. In addition to more advanced economic knowledge, including principles related to taxation, business school graduates should have an advanced knowledge of political economy, development economics, environmental economics, ethics and global governance issues. 

This includes the business and societal risks posed by inequality, political uncertainty, corruption, racism, gender issues and the failure of rule-based systems, in particular judicial systems protecting democracy, property rights, investment and trade. 

Unfortunately, these subjects are seldom taught in business schools, or for that matter in other university curricula. 

Conclusion

The fight against globalization and the resistance to globalism is at its heart a contemporary form of anti-intellectualism.

Both global prosperity and global progress depend upon a common understanding of how an interdependent world functions – economically, politically and socially.

To get there, we must ensure that students understand basic economics and basic governance issues. We must move beyond the idea that school, in particular business school, is merely a vehicle for amassing personal or shareholder wealth. 

Don’t get me wrong: There is nothing wrong with making money and shareholders also deserve a fair return on their investment. But making money is much more enjoyable when everyone around us is also enjoying stability and prosperity. 

Good Globalism and Bad Globalism - Ryan McMaken (Mises)

É a diferença que eu estipulo entre globalização micro (indivíduos) e globalização macro (politicas de governos)

Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

The Difference Between Good Globalism and Bad Globalism

Ryan McMaken

Miss Daily, March 28, 2018

https://mises.org/wire/difference-between-good-globalism-and-bad-globalism

"Globalism" and "globalization," are terms that suffer from a lack of any precise definition. The terms are used freely by a wide variety of commentators to mean both good and bad things — many of which are opposites of each other. Sometimes globalism means lowering trade barriers. Other times it means aggressive foreign policy through international organizations like NATO. Other times it means supporting a global bureaucracy like the United Nations. 

This lack of precision was recently featured in The New York Times with Bret Stephens's column "In Praise of Globalists." Stephens however, also fails to make any serious attempt at defining globalism. He feigns an attempt to define globalism, but in the end, it turns out the column is just a means of making fun of Trump voters and rubes who don't subscribe to Stephens's allegedly cosmopolitan views. 

Stephens tells us that globalists want to "make the world a better place," thus implying that non-globalists don't.  We're informed that globalists value military alliances and free trade. But given that Stephen's isn't willing to define these terms or tell us how these institutions are used to make the world "a better place," we're still left wondering if globalism is a good thing. When international alliances are used to justify the dropping of bombs on civilians or turning Iraq into a basket-case and safe haven for al Qaeda, is that making the world a better place? When the EU uses "free trade" agreements as a means to crush entrepreneurs under the weight of a thousand taxes and regulations, is that making the world a better place? 

Globalism: Conflating both Pro-Market and Anti-Market Forces

Unfortunately, this is nothing new. Globalism has long been a heavily abused term that includes everything from lowering taxes to waging elective wars. For critics on the right, globalism must be suspect because so many center-left politicians are regarded as "globalists."  Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama are all regarded as dyed-in-the-wool globalists who also advocate for greater government control of markets. 

Simultaneously, "globalists" have also long been attacked by anti-capitalists. They see globalism as working hand-in-hand with "neoliberals" who are impoverishing the world by pushing for the spread of market forces, free trade, and support for less government intervention in daily life. 

These critics of so-called neoliberalism therefore attack organizations widely perceived to be "globalist" like the World Bank, the IMF, and the World Trade Organization. Unfortunately, though, the critics attack these organizations for the wrong reasons. These globalist organizations deserve to be criticized, but not because they push some aspects of economic liberalization that are actually good. They should be criticized because they primarily act as political organizations that enhance the ability of some powerful states to intimidate and politically manipulate other, less powerful states. 

This merging of free trade, military interventionism, and bureaucratic politicking under one umbrella of "globalism" ends up confusing the issue of globalism almost beyond repair. 

But there is still hope for the term. 

Historically, Globalism Is the Ideology of Peace and Freedom

Historically, it is important to remember that globalism is intimately connected to liberalism, the ideology of freedom and free trade. 

It is not a coincidence that one of the nineteenth century's most effective proponents of liberalism was Richard Cobden, who fought tirelessly against both trade barriers and against aggressive foreign policy. Cobden can be credited with waging an effective ideological war against the mercantilism of his day which was characterized by nationalist ideas in which both economic success and military security were zero sum games that required highly interventionist government institutions. 

Cobden's program, instead, was one of peace and free trade, which was then rightly regarded as a program of internationalism. Thomas Woords notes: 

Although Cobden's program would doubtless be stigmatized in our day as "isolationism," free economic intercourse and cultural exchange with the world can hardly be described as isolation. In his day, in fact, Cobden was appropriately dubbed the "International Man." And that, indeed, is what he was. Peace, free trade, and nonintervention — these ideas, Cobden believed, were not simply the ideological commitments of one particular party, but rather the necessary ingredients for the progress and flourishing of civilization.

We might say Richard Cobden was one of the first true European globalists. Cobden was further supported by the great French free-trader and anti-socialist Frédéric Bastiat who relentlessly called for the free flow of of goods while denouncing efforts by government institutions to "mold mankind" or impose regimentation on the population. 

Thus, the liberals of the nineteenth century who supported greater freedom of movement in both workers and goods, and non-interventionist foreign policy, might be perplexed were they to see what passes for "globalism" today. 

We are often told, even by pro-market globalists, that we need international organizations like the WTO to "ensure" that free trade prevails. This has always been a less-than-convincing claim. As Carmen Dorobăț has shown, there is not any actual evidence that the WTO really lowers trade barriers. Freedom in trade has grown more outside the WTO framework than within it.  All that is necessary to reap the benefits of free trade is to unilaterally remove barriers to trade. 

The European Commission meanwhile might facilitate trade within its trade bloc, but it acts as an enormous impediment to truly free and global trade. 

Even worse is the foreign policy of the new globalists who support an endless number of wars and military interventions on "humanitarian" grounds. Enormous military bureaucracies like NATO, amazingly, are considered to be "globalist" organizations as well. 

Political Globalism vs. Economic Globalism 

If we wish to end this confusion, though, we need to separate political globalism from economic globalism. 

When we do this, we find that economic globalism is a force for enormous good in the world, but political globalism is primarily a tool for increasing the power of states. 

As to economic globalism, we can see that again and again that the free flow of goods and services, unimpeded by states, improves international relations and increases standards of living.  Where governments have increasingly joined the "globalized" economy, extreme poverty declines while health and well being increases.  Latin American states that have embraced trade and freer economies, for example, have experienced growth. Those states that stick to the regimented economies of old continue to stagnate.  These benefits, however, can be — and have been — achieved by decentralized, unilateral moves toward free trade and deregulated economies. No international bureaucracy is necessary.

This is economic globalization: opening up the benefits of global trade, entrepreneurship, and investment to a larger and larger share of humanity. 

Meanwhile, political globalization is an impediment to these benefits: Political globalists at the World Health Organization, for example, spend their days releasing reports on how people shouldn't eat meat and how we might regulate such behavior in the future. Political globalists hatch new schemes to drive up the cost of living for poor people in the name of preventing climate change. Meanwhile, the World Bank issues edicts on how to "modernize" economies by increasing tax revenues — and thus state power — while imposing new regulations. 

It's essential to make these distinctions. Economic globalism brings wealth. Political globalism brings poverty. 

Economic globalism is about getting government out the way. It's about laissez-faire, being hands, off, and promoting the freedom to innovate, trade, and associate freely with others. 

Political globalism, on the other hand, is about control, rules, central planning, and coercion. 

Some careless observers may lump all this together and declare "globalism" to be a wonderful thing. But when we pay a little more attention to the details, things aren't quite so clear. 

Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is the editor of Mises Wire and The Austrian. Send him your article submissions, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado, and was the economist for the Colorado Division of Housing from 2009 to 2014. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.