| Mnementh said: Sorry, people don't care about nations winning or losing, they care about themself. And in that the western nations did nothing to distribute the winnings of globalization (because it is an overall win for humanity) equally amongst their people. Instead rich people in western states won while poor people lost. China instead increased the general wealth level of most of it's people (in result the chinese government is pretty stable although they don't have a democracy). And 3rd-world countries mostly were seen as resource deliverer. As in the western nations the poor people were left behind, they were lured by the nationalists. You can say that the nations winning or losing is more important, but the effect on people is what affects elections. |
Globalization means that nearly EVERY industry is at risk of foreign competition so you can't have it two ways ...
Globalization isn't just going to take away low margin businesses but it'll take away rich high margin businesses as well. In the not too distant future the rich will face the negative consequences of globalization just as the poor did and will become poor themselves thus becoming more susceptible to nationalism in the end ...
In a world of globalization, there is no "win-win" case but there is only a "winner takes all" scenario so it's far away from being an overall win for humanity if one part of the world has to keep losing jobs. It's bad for the western world to keep lowering their prices because their foreign competition is superior. It then becomes a toxic cycle of competition where western firms keep sustaining losses that they can't pay their employees and then they have to downsize until they eventually go out of business ...
Nations winning or losing are more important because once just about everyone feels the effects of 'losing', they'll turn to nationalism to protect themselves against losing. Globalization in it's purest form is capitalism under the hood ...
