Ameriški podpredsednik J.D. Vance je prostodušno razkril ameriško idejo globalizacije: 

ideja globalizacije je bila, da se bodo bogate države pomaknile višje v vrednostni verigi, medtem ko bodo revne delale enostavnejše stvari

Vance je sicer govoril o ključni napaki zahodnih podjetij, da so ločile dizajniranje izdelkov od njihove proizvodnje z namenom izkoriščanja nižjih stroškov dela, kar se je nato izjalovilo, da so nekatere države (predvsem Južna Koreja, Tajvan in še posebej Kitajska) osvojile visoke tehnologije in tehnološko prehitele svoje “delodajalce”. In Vance apelira, da dizajn in proiazvodnja ostaneta v ZDA.

Toda Vanceov opis ideje globalizacije, kot so si jo zamislili v zahodnih državah, predvsem v ZDA, drži. Teoretični in učbeniški modeli zunanje trgovine so statični v oziru, da ne predvidevajo spremembe v primerjalnih prednostih med državami, torej da prvotne razlike v faktorski intenzivnosti (med delom, kapitalom in človeškim kapitalom ostanejo nespremenjene), s tem pa tudi nespremenjena konkurenčnost v fazah proizvodnje.

Tudi menedžerski koncepti, kot je Smile curve, predvidevajo, da delitev dela, kot jo je opisal Vance – podjetja v razvitih državah obdržijo kontrolo nad vsemi fazami z visoko dodano vrednostjo (od faz inovacij in razvoja izdelka na eni strani krivulje do marketinga, prodaje in financ na drugi strani “krivulje nasmeha”), medtem ko ostanejo podjetja v manj razvitih državah ujeta v fazah z nizko dodano vrednostjo (proiazvodnja izdelka). Na tak način potekajo tudi neposredne tuje investicije, kjer si zahodna podjetja organizirajo faze z nižjo dodano vrednostjo (proizvodnja) v državah z nižjo ceno delovne sile, sama pa obdržijo nadzor nad vsemi fazami z višjo dodano vrednostjo. Poglejte strukturo tujih naložb kjerkoli v vzhodni Evropi, Latinski Ameriki ali Aziji in boste videli enak vzorec. Ali pa v Sloveniji – vloga slovenskih podjetij v verigi dodane vrednosti znotraj multinacionalk ali v zgolj pogodbeni dobaviteljski verigi ni v razvoju in inoviranju, pač pa v cenejši proizvodnji zaradi nižjih stroškov dela.

No, problem je nastal, ker predvsem Kitajska ni hotela ostati v takšnem statičnem odnosu – kot večna pocenska proizvajalka na zahodu dizajniranih izdelkov. Pač pa je vložila ogromne napore v izobraževanje in tehnološki razvoj, da bi najprej skopirala in nato razvila naprej tehnologije in proizvode, ki jih je prej dobila v fazo izdelave. In v tem se skriva “kitajski izvirni greh”, eden in edini razlog, zaradi katerega so ZDA in za njimi še EU sprožile tehnološko in trgovinsko vojno proti Kitajski – ker ta ni želela ostati na dnu prehranjevalne verige, pač pa je želela splezati proti njenemu vrhu. Na zahodu so si izmislili priročen izgovor, da so kitajska podjetja pod kontrolo kitajske komunistične partije in s tem predstavljajo nevarnost za nacionalno varnost zahodnih držav. Butasto, vendar mediji kupijo to zgodbo.

Spodaj je dober komentar na to temo.

_______________

This is actually an extraordinary admission to make for a US Vice President

Vance explains that “the idea of globalization was that rich countries would move further up the value chain while the poor countries made the simpler things.”

But he laments that it didn’t quite work out this way: as he explains it turns out that poor countries (mostly China) didn’t want to just remain cheap labor forever and started moving up the value chain themselves. Which is why, according to him, globalization was a failure.

Meaning that the objective of globalization wasn’t to reduce global inequalities but very much to maintain them, to institute a system of permanent economic hierarchy where rich countries would maintain their hold over the most profitable sectors while relegating poor countries to perpetual subordination in lower-value production.

This is basically all you need to know to explain 90% of U.S. foreign policy these past few years: colonial thinking is alive and well, and America’s shift of strategy in recent years – away from the previous “Washington Consensus” of “free” markets towards a much more overt attempt to contain and restrict China’s development – stems precisely from this mindset.

From semiconductor export controls to investment restrictions, these policies aren’t about ‘national security’ in any genuine sense – they’re about trying to preserve a global economic order where, simply put, poorer nations know their assigned place and stay there. At the very core, that’s the “China threat”: a China that stepped out of the economic lane assigned to it by the West.

It’s deeply ironic when you think of it: a global game allegedly designed to “spread market principles” worldwide is being abandoned precisely because it worked too well. When China succeeded better than expected, the response wasn’t to celebrate the validation of the game’s effectiveness but to change its rules. Precisely because the real unspoken game – but now clearly stated by the U.S. Vice President – was to maintain global inequality, not eliminate it.

All in all, in case they hadn’t yet gotten the memo, this sends a very clear message to the developing world: economic development will require challenging a U.S.-dominated economic order that views their advancement as a threat rather than a success. Which incidentally is why Vance’s words might actually help accelerate the very redistribution of global economic power he laments, pushing more nations to recognize that genuine development requires strategic independence from a system intended to keep them in their place.

Vir: Arnaud Bertrand