Globalization After Ww2

738 Words3 Pages
The end of World War II allowed the world to see what damage it had done after the smoke had cleared. Hundreds of cities were destroyed and millions of soldiers and civilians displaced, injured, or dead. However, the desolate landscapes and empty cities acted as a clean slate on which the great powers could create a more interconnected world. Thus, globalization would become the guiding principle on which international politics were based. However, this process has not given perfect results, and its failures to catch up to expectations are starting to catch up with it. So, given the recent trend away from globalization in recent years, one must ask: in what ways has globalization affected the world since World War II, and how might it be affected…show more content…
For those who embraced these economic principles, their economies rapidly grew. For instance, the United Kingdom’s GDP rose by 2.3%, France’s by 5.5%, and Japan’s by 12.0%, etc. in 1961. Compare those to China’s 27.3% decrease during the same year (“GDP Growth”). However, in the last thirty years, some of these countries – particularly those of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) – have seen rapid economic growth. China was one of the first of these countries to reform in the 1970’s, when it switched from a command economy to a mixed one. This led to unprecedented growth both in GNP and trade (Haas 15). However, one should not think that free trade is the universal solution to all economic problems. A good example of this is with Mongolia. After being released from the Soviet sphere, the government adopted a capitalist system with little trade barriers, with the notable exception of wool. After pressure by the Asia Development Bank, the tariff was removed. However, soon after, wool manufacturing moved to China and Italy. Thus, while free trade generally produces good outcomes, there is a time and place for protectionist policies (Haas 20-1). The imbalance in results from international trade has resulted in “winners” and “losers”. The former group consists of the upper middle class of developing countries and the top one percent of the wealthiest people, while the latter group consists of those of the working…show more content…
Unlike other Republicans, Trump takes a more protectionist stance on trade deals, having criticized both the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) for taking jobs out of the United States (“Policies – Donald J. Trump”). Similarly, Trump has also called out the America’s $800 billion trade deficit, calling it “Inconceivable” (Warstall). However, thinking of trade as zero-sum is mercantilist thinking, not capitalist. Just because the United States imports $800 billion more than it exports does not mean that that amount disappears into the aether. It simply means that other countries invest $800 billion into the American economy (Warstall). International trade, while not perfect, tends to create better outcomes for all if applied
Open Document