4 ms·

> globalization drastically reduces inequality Maybe it reduces inequality between countries, but does it reduce inequality between people (different social cl

> globalization drastically reduces inequality Maybe it reduces inequality between countries, but does it reduce inequality between people (different social classes within countries)? > some people (e.g. American auto workers) held extremely privileged positions by virtue of threats of violence against economic competitors - particularly those overseas Really? I thought they produced cars mainly for the internal market.. I don't see much evidence of any "threats of violence" coming from auto workers to the rest of the world. To make myself more clear, I am willing to accept the globalization (or capitalism) reducing inequality globally as a positive thing, if it wouldn't increase inequality inside the developed countries. But that's not what really happened (profits of Western corporations are all-time high) and that's why it's a cause for concern.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
It reduces inequality between people, such as an American auto worker and a Chinese auto worker. I don't see much evidence of any "threats of violence" coming from auto workers to the rest of the world. Think about what happens when a Mexican attempts to walk to Detroit and apply for a job at GM. Violence will be used against him, and against GM, if they voluntarily transact. Or think of what happens today when a Brazilian sugar manufacturer attempts to sell sugar to willing purchasers in the US. If you care so much about inequality within political boundaries, why not just move the boundaries to reduce inequality?
- blfr 11y ago
  Think about what happens when a Mexican attempts to walk to Detroit and apply for a job at GM. Violence will be used against him, and against GM, if they voluntarily transact. GM and Mexicans can't also voluntarily transact in my kitchen or in the foyer of my building regardless of what impact it would have on inequality. Violence would be used against them if they tried. Other citizens have certain rights, that are a lot like property rights in condominiums or HoAs for example, to decide what happens in their country. If GM and Mexicans want to voluntarily transact, they can do it in Mexico, should Mexicans allow it, or some third country where they're both welcome. Your argument is basically an argument for communism (as in common ownership, not any particular political system): if some people have what others need, why not just redistribute it?
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    No one can transact in your home without your permission, but the issue here is that I can't transact with a Mexican in my home either. I'm arguing for capitalism, and against economic protectionism. Where do you get the idea that I favor redistributing wealth?
    - blfr 11y ago
      Right. The issue is analogous to the shared foyer of a building (where you also often cannot transact with random non-residents). You argue that people who currently have a right to their country (citizens) should abolish its borders and allow anyone to move in. Which would be like residents of a building allowing anyone into the shared space. The value of access to that shared space is what would be redistributed from residents to non-residents (leaving its depreciation in the process aside). The step from this intangible to more concrete wealth is minor, especially since, as you've pointed out, it has significant dollar value.
- asgard1024 11y ago
  > It reduces inequality between people, such as an American auto worker and a Chinese auto worker. Between some people yes. But here's the big problem; we know the causal force for this "inequality reduction", and it's not that someone wanted to make Chinese or Mexican workers richer (or that they would get better at demanding better pay). The causal force was that capitalists in the U.S. and small group of people outside the U.S. (usually people in power in developing countries, like members of the Chinese communist party) wanted to get richer at expense of everybody else. Based on this known causal force, there is no reason to think that capitalism itself causes more equality. (And in fact, globalization has been shown to counteract ability of countries to compete, see for example book Kicking Away the Ladder from Ha-Joon Chang, who is korean. Countries that depend on internal demand and supply rather than foreign investment and exports tend to fare much better in closing the economic gap with respect to developed world.)
  - Tycho 11y ago
    The whole explicit point of capitalism is to rely on the selfish actions of others to generate greater wealth for all. Or put another way, to never rely on selfless action.
    - danbruc 11y ago
      I think not many really doubt that capitalism is really effective at creating wealth. You probably also get most people to agree that capitalism increases wealth for many if not most people and not only a selected few. But, and this I think is the real issue, capitalism favors capitalists. Everyone becomes wealthier but capitalists take a disproportionate large share.

yummyfajitas 11y ago

It reduces inequality between people, such as an American auto worker and a Chinese auto worker. I don't see much evidence of any "threats of violence" coming from auto workers to the rest of the world. Think about what happens when a Mexican attempts to walk to Detroit and apply for a job at GM. Violence will be used against him, and against GM, if they voluntarily transact. Or think of what happens today when a Brazilian sugar manufacturer attempts to sell sugar to willing purchasers in the US. If you care so much about inequality within political boundaries, why not just move the boundaries to reduce inequality?

blfr 11y ago
Think about what happens when a Mexican attempts to walk to Detroit and apply for a job at GM. Violence will be used against him, and against GM, if they voluntarily transact. GM and Mexicans can't also voluntarily transact in my kitchen or in the foyer of my building regardless of what impact it would have on inequality. Violence would be used against them if they tried. Other citizens have certain rights, that are a lot like property rights in condominiums or HoAs for example, to decide what happens in their country. If GM and Mexicans want to voluntarily transact, they can do it in Mexico, should Mexicans allow it, or some third country where they're both welcome. Your argument is basically an argument for communism (as in common ownership, not any particular political system): if some people have what others need, why not just redistribute it?
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  No one can transact in your home without your permission, but the issue here is that I can't transact with a Mexican in my home either. I'm arguing for capitalism, and against economic protectionism. Where do you get the idea that I favor redistributing wealth?
  - blfr 11y ago
    Right. The issue is analogous to the shared foyer of a building (where you also often cannot transact with random non-residents). You argue that people who currently have a right to their country (citizens) should abolish its borders and allow anyone to move in. Which would be like residents of a building allowing anyone into the shared space. The value of access to that shared space is what would be redistributed from residents to non-residents (leaving its depreciation in the process aside). The step from this intangible to more concrete wealth is minor, especially since, as you've pointed out, it has significant dollar value.
asgard1024 11y ago
> It reduces inequality between people, such as an American auto worker and a Chinese auto worker. Between some people yes. But here's the big problem; we know the causal force for this "inequality reduction", and it's not that someone wanted to make Chinese or Mexican workers richer (or that they would get better at demanding better pay). The causal force was that capitalists in the U.S. and small group of people outside the U.S. (usually people in power in developing countries, like members of the Chinese communist party) wanted to get richer at expense of everybody else. Based on this known causal force, there is no reason to think that capitalism itself causes more equality. (And in fact, globalization has been shown to counteract ability of countries to compete, see for example book Kicking Away the Ladder from Ha-Joon Chang, who is korean. Countries that depend on internal demand and supply rather than foreign investment and exports tend to fare much better in closing the economic gap with respect to developed world.)
- Tycho 11y ago
  The whole explicit point of capitalism is to rely on the selfish actions of others to generate greater wealth for all. Or put another way, to never rely on selfless action.
  - danbruc 11y ago
    I think not many really doubt that capitalism is really effective at creating wealth. You probably also get most people to agree that capitalism increases wealth for many if not most people and not only a selected few. But, and this I think is the real issue, capitalism favors capitalists. Everyone becomes wealthier but capitalists take a disproportionate large share.