4 ms·

I wasn't being sarcastic, I wanted to hear your reasoning so I could attempt a rebuttal and here it is: With respect to your argument, I would consider Mexican

by aianus 11y ago

I wasn't being sarcastic, I wanted to hear your reasoning so I could attempt a rebuttal and here it is: With respect to your argument, I would consider Mexicans and Canadians to be part of the 'greater population' I was referring to. Sure, globalization is terrible if you're used to making $20/h with no education in a factory in Detroit. Globalization is great if you're a Chinese peasant who can now earn a meal in an hour at the factory instead of 12h of subsistence farming. Overall I'm pretty sure it's a net positive to humanity at the expense of the American lower-middle class.

Retra 11y ago
I don't have a stake in this discussion either way, but it seems to me that you're not quantifying the tradeoffs properly (not that I expect you to, really.) It could very well be the case that the improved earnings of that Chinese peasant are vastly disproportionate to the loss experienced by the factory worker in Detroit. The middle-man transferring the money from one market to the other could be pocketing most of it, leaving the majority of people worse of and in a far weaker political position. And while it may seem to be a net positive to humanity, that could very easily be a relativistic perspective that breaks down in the long term.
- woah 11y ago
  So, do you believe that there should be no trade allowed between countries at all? What is the right amount of trade, and how did you determine what that is? Is it possible that your determination is wrong?
  - Retra 11y ago
    Of course it's possible that I'm wrong. All I'm saying is that it could go either way. Converting high-quality work for few in exchange for low quality work for many is not an inherently valuable proposition. (Because it often creates extremely-high-quality work for a very few.) You need more information to determine if it is the right thing to do.

by aianus 11y ago

Retra 11y ago

I don't have a stake in this discussion either way, but it seems to me that you're not quantifying the tradeoffs properly (not that I expect you to, really.) It could very well be the case that the improved earnings of that Chinese peasant are vastly disproportionate to the loss experienced by the factory worker in Detroit. The middle-man transferring the money from one market to the other could be pocketing most of it, leaving the majority of people worse of and in a far weaker political position. And while it may seem to be a net positive to humanity, that could very easily be a relativistic perspective that breaks down in the long term.

woah 11y ago
So, do you believe that there should be no trade allowed between countries at all? What is the right amount of trade, and how did you determine what that is? Is it possible that your determination is wrong?
- Retra 11y ago
  Of course it's possible that I'm wrong. All I'm saying is that it could go either way. Converting high-quality work for few in exchange for low quality work for many is not an inherently valuable proposition. (Because it often creates extremely-high-quality work for a very few.) You need more information to determine if it is the right thing to do.