Easy international travel is key to the free market

The argument

Many companies rely on international travel, utilizing globalization to their advantage to cut production costs and to ship their products around the world. They aim to sell as many goods as possible to as many people as possible, regardless of their geographical location. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed why capitalism’s reliance on global connectivity is not sustainable. After all, the rapid spread of COVID-19 was partly facilitated by infected individuals traveling alongside other passengers on trains, ships, airplanes, and various modes of public transport. And now that airplanes are no longer flying at their normal capacity, global supply chains have been disrupted as well- and the heavy reliance on international travel has thrown our globalized society into shock. These vulnerabilities generated by interconnectedness are further reinforced by austerity. Indeed, capitalists’ mantra to ‘cut all unnecessary costs’ has left societal systems with little safety margin to cope with unexpected events. From a capitalistic, return-maximizing point of view, cutting costs to the bare minimum may make sense. From a crisis preparedness angle though, it is irresponsible and indeed, dangerous.” The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed that global interconnectedness is both a blessing and a curse, and capitalism isn’t a sustainable economic system due to its failure to acknowledge this. Companies will be unable to manufacture and ship products as efficiently as they previously could, and learning how to cope with this will be a learning curve for industries that relied almost entirely on deteriorating global supply chains. They will inevitably adopt protectionist business models to cut their financial losses, which will result in millions of people losing their jobs, while prices simultaneously skyrocket. If companies decide not to do this and operate as if there is no global pandemic, they risk infecting even more people and further contributing to the spread of a deadly virus. Capitalism poses a threat to the welfare of society in both instances, and once individuals realize this, the demands for capitalism to be replaced with a more sustainable economic system will increase.

Premises

Counter-arguments

International supply chains are resilient. Once the pandemic ends, countries and companies will likely revert back to how business operated prior to the existence of COVID-19. Transnational links, connected by a system of airplanes and other modes of transportation, are being eroded because international travel is not safe during a pandemic. As a result, many countries have stopped outsourcing their manufacturing and have instead turned towards domestic production to create jobs, prevent shortages, and become self-reliant. Although doing so is more expensive, businesses recognize that it is necessary for the short-term if people want to keep their local economies afloat. The existence of capitalism as an economic system is not wholly contingent on the existence of global supply chains. Although these supply chains help to facilitate many of capitalism's goals, such as cutting unnecessary costs and manufacturing products as cheaply, quickly, and efficiently as possible, capitalism can ultimately survive without this- at least for the time being. What we're currently witnessing in regards to businesses manufacturing their products domestically rather than internationally is only a temporary solution to the issue at hand. Once the COVID-19 pandemic ends, international travel will resume. It is very likely that governments and businesses will take extra safety and sanitary precautions to prevent the outbreak of another virus because they have a financial incentive to help prevent further economic disasters. Capitalism is flexible and resilient- it is capable of adapting and changing alongside the needs and demands of consumers, who are now prioritizing health and safety over everything else.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Market economies long predate cheap air travel and containerised global supply chains, and operated within largely national markets for most of their history. The premise mistakes a recent and particular configuration of capitalism for the thing itself. [Rejecting P2] Disruption is not the same as destruction. The counter-argument on record argues that supply chains are resilient, that the shift toward domestic production was a short-term response to an emergency, and that firms have a direct financial incentive to restore and harden international operations rather than abandon them. [Rejecting P3] The dilemma is false as constructed. The two options offered — turn protectionist or keep operating and spread the virus — omit the outcome that actually followed, in which trade and travel resumed alongside testing, vaccination and modified operations. [Rejecting C] The argument is also a prediction that can now be assessed, and it has not held: global trade volumes and international travel recovered, supply-chain adjustment took the form of diversification and inventory buffers rather than withdrawal, and no broad movement to replace the economic system emerged. The counter's characterisation of capitalism as adaptable rather than dependent on any one arrangement is what the intervening years support.