Contrary to popular opinon, I see the problem with globalization not in opening up our markets too much to other countries' markets resulting in wage wars that often tend to be won by the less prosperous, less developed countries, but actually in the opposite. The PRC is a security risk which is why id like to exclude it from this analysis and put the same sanctions on it that we already have in place against the IRGC and North Korea. Focusing on other countries, the same capitalist decision for producers in prosperous regions/countries of this earth would be to sell their factories/land/capital and invest it in these emerging markets and wait until they have caught up, so that producing in their country of origin becomes economically viable again. As they would become investment bankers doing so, their own wealth would increase and they could use their orginally superior skills in a certain craft to help the companies they invest in in the newly associated countries of a free trade zone. This would accelerate the equalization between wage levels and the country of origin would become a viable investment zone again. We think it as odd to restrict capital flow between American states but shy away from doing the same with the rest of the world, while ignoring that we are both producers AND consumers and globalization has offered us a higher living standard through the increased purchasing power in specific goods as they became more competitive throught the lower wage levels in the associated areas. In this sense im a globalization accelerationist who believes that capitalism should extend to all corners of earth and we can produce most rationally if we accelerate market adjustments. let me know what you think

https://newideal.aynrand.org/p/how-christianity-polluted-the-moral an Objectivist view on Christian history