Globalization’s Few Winners And Many Losers

Quality, quality of life, and well-being are not easily quantified, so they are ignored.

I often write about the Tyranny of Price, the rarely examined assumption that lower prices are all that matters.

Thanks to the Tyranny of Price, the quality of many goods has plummeted. Obsolescence is either planned or the result of inferior components that fail, crippling the entire product. As correspondent Mark G. has observed, the poor quality we now accept as a global standard wasn’t available at any price in the 1960s– such poor quality goods were simply not manufactured and sold.

There is another even more pernicious consequence of the Tyranny of Price: globalization, which makes two promises to participants: 1) lower prices everywhere and 2) manufacturing work that will raise millions of poor people in developing economies out of poverty.

Globalization is presented as a win-win solution: the developed countries get cheaper goods and the developing world get the benefits of industrialization.

But now a new study, Poorer Than Their Parents? Flat or Falling Incomes in Advanced Economies, finds that globalization has been a bad deal for 80% of the people in developed economies, as their income and wealth has stagnated or declined.

  • Alain

    Globalisation is a lose lose situation for developed countries with the exception of the fat cats at the top. It creates unemployment, lower standard of living, loss of individual freedom and poor quality goods. I would gladly pay more for quality goods, but unfortunately they have become as rare as hens’ teeth. Trying to find a product that isn’t “Made in China” has become just about impossible.

    • BillyHW

      Same with immigration. Both free trade and immigration should be restricted to developed, advanced nations that share our values and way of life.

      • Alain

        I agree. What we have, which was started by the Liberals but continued even under so-called Conservatives, is mass immigration, the majority from 3rd world countries. Mass immigration is another tool used by globalists. Up until the very early 60s we did not have mass immigration, or what is more correctly population replacement. Furthermore, the bulk of immigrants shared Western culture and after having to meet strict requirements (clean bill of health, no criminal record, and not being a burden on the country) were not provided with all the freebies by government, even more than working Canadians. That is exactly how it should be.

    • Bingo.

      Who in those slave labour countries is benefitting?

  • Quite simply, people work better as individuals contributing to a whole rather than a whole contributing to another whole.

  • Billy Bob Thornton

    I seem to remember Harper calling himself a globalist when he was in power. Of course, the fact is in neoliberalism all three of the parties are globalist and capitalist and for near zero interest rates.

    • Clausewitz

      Taken totally out of context as usual. Harper stated that for the economy to grow you must take into account the Global markets and economies, not like Trudeau who wants to hand over Canada’s sovereignty to the UN and Global Bureaucracies.

    • Minicapt

      The clue is still missing.


  • Brett_McS

    All the problems listed in this article that are supposedly caused by globalisation are actually caused by government (via high corporate taxes, inflation, stupid regulations, The Greens …) that drive away business.

    If you want to stop two people making a trade, just because they live in different countries, then better arguments than this rubbish are required.

    • Alain

      I do not find evidence that all the problems listed are caused by government as you suggest. However I see two causes: socialism/collectivism including corporate socialism and/or globalists.