Yes, we know, you like globalization. We get it already.

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

I'm not completely sure what to make of all this. Malkin collects some writings from Glenn Reynolds, thw WSJ, and others. Instamatic writes:

Where survival is concerned, rich is better. That's something to keep in mind when people describe economic growth as "anti-human."

Do rich people not vacation at the seashore? This rightwing tendency to reduce this whole tragedy to "The More You Know"-style public service announcements is quite grating, not to mention illogical.

Now, no one could possibly deny the elements of truth in what Reynolds, the WSJ, and Aaron Wildavsky (Malkin's former mentor, apparently) have to say. But to suggest that because economic growth helps keep rich people safe, it's intrinsically good no matter what form it takes is ludicrous. How about when "economic growth" leads to predatory lending practices which cripple third world nations? What does that do to their survivability? That's why some (not MalkinWatch, necessarily) call it "anti-human", you idiot. Because it makes rich people safer while having exactly the opposite effect on the disadvantaged.

Global economic growth is not intrinsically bad. None but the most inane anarchist liberals have ever said it is, really. But that does not mean growth is intrinsically good at any cost.