I think you might be interested in this article about “stereotypical” globalist Ian Bremmer’s critique of globalism at Washington Examiner:
In a nutshell, Bremmer argues that international trade and technological innovation drastically changed labor markets, and many people unable to adjust to the changing economy feel left behind, or fear they are at risk to be left behind by further mechanization of the means of production. The resulting inequality feeds populist tendencies as citizens begin to find scapegoats for their woes, such as immigrants, inevitably creating an “us vs. them†mentality as they implore their government to protect them from threats to their livelihood.
My own critique is that, at least in the form it has taken in the U. S., globalism has always been phony. Genuine globalism wouldn’t protect lawyers, physicians, architects, and bankers while exposing auto workers and computer programmers to international competition. It wouldn’t shield intellectual property, a major focus of U. S. trade policy, while making physical property vulnerable.
Where are the new jobs that are predicted to replace the old jobs. Since the younger and more educated people cannot find a job, what is the problem?
Again, could somebody explain why devolving to more labor intensive production is good. If fewer workers were available for agriculture harvesting, the industry would become more mechanized, and perhaps, the manufacturers of this new machinery would be able to hire the out-of-work former manufacturing employers.
It’s only good if you adopt the industrial strategy the United States has—maximizing the number of low wage jobs.
@Dave Schuler
I agree, but then, there should be an acknowledgement that the Industrial Revolution has been wrong and a failure. According to the globalist dogma, Gutenberg’s printing press was the work of the devil, and if more books needed to be produced, more scribes should have been employed.