Has Globalization Backfired? Live Debate Video
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ม.ค. 2023
- For a period of time, going global just seemed to make sense. But with China’s rise, Covid-19, and the war in Ukraine, words like “localnomics,” “friends-shoring,” and “decoupling” have helped codify a growing movement that calls for less interdependence between economies. Those in favor of a more “deglobalized” system of trade argue that it is not only more environmentally friendly and responsive to regional needs, but also less of a driver of income inequality. Indeed, globalization’s three-decade trend of trade growing at twice the speed of the world economy has not lifted all boats, they argue. For many, including middle-income populations in the industrialized west, it has backfired. Deglobalization is a welcome a shift. Others disagree. Globalization’s virtues are unmistakable, they say, resulting in less poverty and higher incomes across the world. People once cut off from markets benefit from new connections in commerce, culture, and communications. For them, it has not backfired. In fact, in the face of political challenges and volatile markets, more regionally-focused trade constitutes a dangerous circling of the wagons. In this context, we ask the question: Has Globalization Backfired?
This debate is presented and produced in partnership with YPO EDGE and will take place in front of a live audience, at the YPO EDGE convention.
"YES" Debater: Rana Foroohar, Global Business Columnist, Financial Times; Author, “Homecoming: The Path To Prosperity In A Post-Global World”
"NO" Debater: Parag Khanna, Founder & CEO of Climate Alpha and Founder & Managing Partner of FutureMap
#opentodebate #debate #globalization #supplychain #trade #traderoutes #shipping #China #RanaForoohar #Parag Khanna #worldeconomy #global #trade #decoupling #industrialization #ecommerce #culture #markets #populations #globalbusiness #GlobalBusinessColumnist #YPOEDGE #YPO #climate
@FinancialTimes
@YPOvideo
===================================
Subscribe: / @opentodebateorg
Official site: opentodebate.org/
Open to Debate Twitter: / opentodebateorg
Open to Debate Facebook: / beopentodebate
===================================
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Please watch: "Unresolved: The Iran Threat"
• Unresolved: The Iran T...
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
"You do not rise to the level of your goals. You fall to the level of your systems." - James Clear
I feel the fundamental issue here is they're arguing 2 completely different things. He is saying globalization always wins - which it does because ideas and money and people will move around to their best advantage - however, she is saying it has backfired in the sense that the goal of globalization is to increase wealth and if that wealth is not being disseminated throughout the populace then it has failed in its goal. I suspect the core part of his strategy is not to address this as he knows that this is an issue.
People moving around to their best advantage isn't always a "win". It certainly isn't a win for European welfare states.
@Aristocratic Rebel A win for whom? Globalization is the result of unimpeded movement of people, goods, and ideas. Globalization wins because the movement of any of that results in profit for someone, which someone will always try and benefit from. She is arguing that allowing the free movement of these things, without limits or regulation, outside the limits of the nation state can harm the nation state as a whole because the beneficiaries of globalizing are not representative of the whole of the people of the nation state. Globalizing is more efficient at generating wealth, therefore it will always exist. But it is less efficient at distributing said wealth evenly in existing polities on its own. Therefore, the conundrum.
Exactly. He basically admits that globalization crushes all opposition, while she is arguing for those crushed by globalization.
In the opening statement, he is making the argument that simply because globalization is accelerating, it hasn't backfired.....how on Earth is that a cogent argument?
As soon as he said "neutral:" disingenuous. Greed is never good. He refuses to debate inequity is wrong: his talk is a smokescreen.
39 minutes of them arguing over terms, and then the obvious concession that globalization has positively effected the world in every measurable way. The globalization of the future is not that of the past, but to say it “backfired” is to quibble over minutia. Hard to call this a debate.
Globalization has never been a bad thing economically for any nation.
Problems associated with globalization have nothing specific to do with globalization itself. In effect, such problems already existed. And if certain nations don't make internal changes to accommodate changes in the world as they emerge, then they will surely not survive as well as other nations.
Wise nations prepare for any unwelcome changes which come along, which is something that unwise nations generally disregard. And some nations, such as the USA where I reside, are destroying themselves from within via their asinine
self- defeating politics.
uff...i don't like it when one of the participants frames the discussion in a way to stop any debate.
sadly, Khanna does just that...he takes any intent out of globalization...so he can argue that its still happening thus it can't have backfired...its till exists. what a weak position to take.
So it's only the end of round one but I have to argue that the gentleman had a really weak argument just because globalization hasn't faded out it does not mean that globalization has not backfired those are two different things
I'm starting to think there's an audience bias in these votes toward more affluent, more educated, and better protected people. In this case, the issue is about a dangerously imbalanced development, and Rana is right. Much of the audience is simply not feeling the negative effects strongly enough and is benefitting from the profits. They are closer to or in the 10% she talks about and are culturally separate from those on the losing end in their own country.
You are coping hard with these baseless assumptions
I personally think low population growth or even reduction is often partly the result of constrained economic opportunity during the crucial early adulthood years, and additional competition from migrants only worsens the labor market in this sector. obviously, labor markets are complex, there are different types of labor, and this is a gross oversimplification, as land and rural/urban splits and govt child support policies all affect it. but to me it is like someone who has a wound that is bleeding not stopping the bleeding but instead getting additional blood from an infusion to make up for the loss. its just much easier for politicians to have an open immigration policy than actually address all the issues that cause low population growth issues.
- in regards to the migration policies.
Immigration doesn't grow a population. It replaces it.
I was undecided before the debate, and am still undecided after. Interesting debate though.
Parag Khanna- "I like immigration because I've defined it so broadly that it's inevitable and because it's benefitted me because I'm a citizen of everywhere that is not loyal to any country."
People who think like him should be voted out of governments and socially sidelined by the majority in every country.
They don't talk about the backfiring! They are debating whether globalization is successful. That question has many answers depending on who you ask. One of the ways globalization has a backlash is the deplorable working conditions that arise from the need for cheap labor in order for globalization to be profitable. Globalization has backfired in terms of inequality between the working masses and the elite who have basically enslaved the poor in many countries. The elite in the US make literally millions and billions of dollars from the labor of people who are paid next to nothing in southeast Asia.
great debate overall
It depends on where you live and income/wealth.
i hope so.
1. Globalization depends on free flow of goods over sea. 2. Houthis have entered the chat.
I just learned globalization can be people too.
If you talk about global equality in wealth distribution then there is something to ponder this continuous use of globalization for the benefit of few is utterly ridiculous and selfish
I think I get what the guy is saying, I think he’s saying that globalization didn’t backfire, and you can tell us that a bunch the countries are still doing it and that what actually backfired was our politicians who didn’t look at globalism the right way and enact the right policies, he’s blaming people, not the systems.
Rana: Global poverty rate has been reduced largely thanks to China, but only the Chinese state benefited, not the people. WHAT?
Yes, you hear it right. It benefits CCP not the chinese people.
@@vanessali1365 RUBBISH. your assumption is based on what? I dont see the chinese begging for money from their oversea relatives.
@@calvyncraven1141 based on real live in CCPchina....as the working poor in CCPchina don't beg; they just work till their bone sticking out rather than beg. Wealth created by the hard-working Chinese people are being miss-used on building up CCP military apparatus.
@@vanessali1365 so you are saying standard of living is better off 40 years ago then today for the majority of the population?
@@vanessali1365 and tell me where in the world, the poor doesn't need to work hard? In the US, you can be working multiple jobs and still be living on the streets
And these people think as if west is beyond reproach ,as if nobody should progress and only west shoudo
I believe globalisation is here to stay, it will though get more complex.
The one truth continues to increase it's comprehensive explanation of our environment at all scales, the truth provided to humanity via academic revelation.
Classicism, in all it's global forms, is becoming more & more insignificant.
In my view, humanity is undertaking a major transition, I believe we are speciating, into what I call Homo Nekton. This transition is why standards of living will not purely climb, but will also in the short term, stagnate & decline, this will though in the medium to long term settle, resulting in advancement for the whole species & planet.
Moving home causes temporary turmoil in life's flow.
For me, globalisation is implicit, since & because, humanity spread out to populate & dominate the whole planet.
Just because there are competing systems, does not mean globalisation has failed, it means humanity is testing/debating the way forward.
There's no such thing as "humanity".
It all depends on whether you have benefitted from globalization. If you are affected negatively, such as the USA, then it is a YES. When the US failed to benefit from globalization which it promoted enthusiastically back then, then it cries foul.
Exactly. The USA must withdraw from global trade.
The problem is there is central government for the whole world. Within a country, central government can re-balance the wealthy and interest between rich and poor states/provinces. Between countries, so far, there is no such mechanism. Seems Chinese government is trying to build a similar system through the belt road initiative.
When you withdraw from globalization designed by you, everyone else also will give up your currency as their reserve currency. So you will lose large part of your currency’s value also.
@@charlieloo2470 The opposite is true. As the USA withdraws from global trade, and its value is determined less by extranational factors, the value of the dollar will go up, just as it is doing now.
😂😂😂
She had to take a shot at Trump. Her position is pretty much right up Trump’s alley. The elites have failed yadi ya..
Two leftists debate about globalization. How cute. Where's the reactionary position?
This is a very serious problem with I2 debates. The very premise that both sides are asked to debate over are worded in a leftist way then two intellectuals who are nearly identical in viewpoint are invited to debate. This is of the better debates. Thats how low the bar is.
That woman is narcissist of highest order.
Happens
Tabarakallah masha Allah thank you so much my family I appreciate I think all of you in appreciate I'm well I think all of you thank you so much my family I don't have to give us all of you the only my heart when that I get my heart to help go to put bless ogun lorry to anything to do it to help thank you so much
this guy is a complete joke 😂