4 ms·

I once had an angry argument on reddit about the whole "globalization is reducing world poverty" thing. I find this argument to be a very weird one. How can yo

by jokoon 11y ago

I once had an angry argument on reddit about the whole "globalization is reducing world poverty" thing. I find this argument to be a very weird one. How can you compromise your own citizens for the sake of other countries, while you obviously have no power over their course in history? What sort of government compromises the well-being of its citizens and the health of its economy for the benefit of other countries ? Since when does international trade regulations involve plain altruism and sacrificing your own? What shocks is how you can still find many videos of Milton Friedman defending free trade, but to that point it almost sound like propaganda. I vividly remember that video when he went into a big asian city while praising the free market. For example, seeing how much electronics are built in China, what is preventing the Chinese government to put heavy tariffs on those exports? I guess China doesn't have a monopoly on electronics, but I'm still a little curious.

CWuestefeld 11y ago
I don't understand why I should prefer the comfort of some guy 2,000 miles away from me that I've never met over somebody on the other side of a border that some guy drew on a map a couple hundred years ago. Both of these people are abstractions to me; why should I prefer the Californian to the Chinese person? Even more to the point, why should I prefer the Californian when (in the general case, apparently not in this specific case, as cited by the OP) trading freely with the Chinese person will tend to improve the welfare of those around me to a greater degree?
- ConfuciusSay 11y ago
  Because a Californian individual and a California based company pays federal taxes which leads directly to a more stable financial situation for the country you live in, not to mention a higher likelihood of tax cuts etc. Also, what evidence do you have that trade with Chinese will improve the welfare of those around you?
  - netheril96 11y ago
    > Because a Californian individual and a California based company pays federal taxes The jobs mostly affected by the free trade are low skill and therefore low wages jobs. Those jobs barely pay any income taxes.
    - ConfuciusSay 11y ago
      Not true, the study references both low skill and high skill jobs. Not to mention there's corporate taxes and other revenues that the government receives that they wouldn't otherwise from a foreign company.
- jokoon 11y ago
  Because your vote only applies to what happens inside your borders.
netheril96 11y ago
> Since when does international trade regulations involve plain altruism and sacrificing your own? International trade is not based on plain altruism. On both sides of the trade, some people benefit and some lose, but the net gains at both sides are positive. The article focuses on those hurt in US, but it does not mention how the US capitalists, consumers and workers not competing with China benefit. > what is preventing the Chinese government to put heavy tariffs on those exports? Chinese governments not only do not place tariffs on their exports, but also subsidies the exports. That is, the goods exported from China is cheaper than those sold directly in China. They do it for their own self interests.
- ConfuciusSay 11y ago
  Many proponents of free trade argue that we should be pro free trade because it benefits the poor people in places like China. The OP is referring to that argument. As for why this study didn't focus on the benefits - maybe because there weren't any? Or maybe it's because the benefits mostly went to the executives of large multinational corporations who are lobbying for these deals?
  - netheril96 11y ago
    > maybe because there weren't any The other comments have said plenty about the benefits, the most obvious being how cheap your daily goods are nowadays, effectively boosting the purchasing power of every American. In addition, had computers and smartphones not been so cheap because of the Chinese workers, the whole Silicon Valley bubble probably would never have come into existence. > it's because the benefits mostly went to the executives of large multinational corporations Why should the benefits of the executives be discounted? Perhaps you believe that the rich should not be made even richer; rather, the poor should receive the most benefits. Then why do you think that American workers, orders of magnitude richer than the Chinese, should be made even richer?
    - jokoon 11y ago
      > Then why do you think that American workers, orders of magnitude richer than the Chinese, should be made even richer? Because that's in the interest of their fellow citizens, since those citizens can vote to influence decisions that concern them, not the chinese. I don't think an american want a chinese to fail, but I don't think an american citizen really holds the fate of chinese people, and I don't think anybody should pretend otherwise. That's mainly about doing things that concerns you, and things that you can reach. The state of the chinese economy is in the hands of the chinese. What I mean is that those decision are beyond the grasp or citizens and politicians. People should care about their own first, others second. Trade is fine, as long as there is no loss on your side. Maybe some want to believe that the world is one uniform place, but the reality of politics say otherwise. Sometimes you have to come back to basic strategy and realities.
netheril96 11y ago
(If we ignore the fact that both sides benefit from the free trade) The central tenet of the rightist ideology is free market and free trade. That one is obvious. The central tenet of the leftist ideology is wealth redistribution, that the rich should compensate for the poor. Thus, given that the Americans are orders of magnitude richer than Chinese, it is only fair that some of the wealth of Americans be redistributed to the Chinese. The international trade involve altruism for the same reason that the aristocrats altruistically share their (previous) privilege with the plebeians.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  I don't think you've accurately identified the central tenet of either right-wing or left-wing ideology (though you've correctly identified how much of the current propaganda of the American Right portrays right vs. left ideology as if it were the central tenet of each.)
- jokoon 11y ago
  When one argues about income redistribution, he does so it can be done in its own country. Also, I don't think shifting labor on poorer country can really be described as income redistribution. Labor isn't income.
  - netheril96 11y ago
    > When one argues about income redistribution, he does so it can be done in its own country. Why should wealth redistribution be scoped by country, but not less, not more? The rich class in the United States want to limit the redistribution within themselves, and they are called greedy and evil. Yet when the lower class of the US want to limit the redistribution within the US, and refuse the share with the even poorer, they call themselves the paragons of virtue. Isn't it double standards? And I'm not talking about income redistribution, but wealth redistribution. The opportunity to work is important in that.
    - jokoon 11y ago
      As I said in another comment, one should focus on politics of its own country, not the politics and the complexities of international politics. I don't think you can really argue that politics should cover what is beyond the grasp of the US. Since when will people vote and decide on the well being of non-americans ? It's non sense.
T2_t2 11y ago
> How can you compromise your own citizens for the sake of other countries You don't! Not collectively, not en masse, and not universally. MANY citizens win. And even the people this hurts, they likely are better off because things are so cheap. Would you rather be unemployed in 2016, or 1916? In 2016, you likely have TV, a mobile phone and the internet. The problem is usually in specific areas - geographic locations. A huge part is likely the unwillingness of people to move. Even in the midst of the GFC, mining towns in the midwest were booming. > many videos of Milton Friedman defending free trade, And the example he used - Hong Kong - is EVEN RICHER now. https://www.google.com.au/search?q=gdp+per+capita+hong+kong&oq=gdp+per+capita+hong+kong https://www.google.com.au/search?q=gdp+per+capita+hong+kong&... Free trade DEFINITELY hurts people, but on the whole, makes life better for almost every citizen.

by jokoon 11y ago

CWuestefeld 11y ago

I don't understand why I should prefer the comfort of some guy 2,000 miles away from me that I've never met over somebody on the other side of a border that some guy drew on a map a couple hundred years ago. Both of these people are abstractions to me; why should I prefer the Californian to the Chinese person? Even more to the point, why should I prefer the Californian when (in the general case, apparently not in this specific case, as cited by the OP) trading freely with the Chinese person will tend to improve the welfare of those around me to a greater degree?

ConfuciusSay 11y ago
Because a Californian individual and a California based company pays federal taxes which leads directly to a more stable financial situation for the country you live in, not to mention a higher likelihood of tax cuts etc. Also, what evidence do you have that trade with Chinese will improve the welfare of those around you?
- netheril96 11y ago
  > Because a Californian individual and a California based company pays federal taxes The jobs mostly affected by the free trade are low skill and therefore low wages jobs. Those jobs barely pay any income taxes.
  - ConfuciusSay 11y ago
    Not true, the study references both low skill and high skill jobs. Not to mention there's corporate taxes and other revenues that the government receives that they wouldn't otherwise from a foreign company.
jokoon 11y ago
Because your vote only applies to what happens inside your borders.

netheril96 11y ago

> Since when does international trade regulations involve plain altruism and sacrificing your own? International trade is not based on plain altruism. On both sides of the trade, some people benefit and some lose, but the net gains at both sides are positive. The article focuses on those hurt in US, but it does not mention how the US capitalists, consumers and workers not competing with China benefit. > what is preventing the Chinese government to put heavy tariffs on those exports? Chinese governments not only do not place tariffs on their exports, but also subsidies the exports. That is, the goods exported from China is cheaper than those sold directly in China. They do it for their own self interests.

ConfuciusSay 11y ago
Many proponents of free trade argue that we should be pro free trade because it benefits the poor people in places like China. The OP is referring to that argument. As for why this study didn't focus on the benefits - maybe because there weren't any? Or maybe it's because the benefits mostly went to the executives of large multinational corporations who are lobbying for these deals?
- netheril96 11y ago
  > maybe because there weren't any The other comments have said plenty about the benefits, the most obvious being how cheap your daily goods are nowadays, effectively boosting the purchasing power of every American. In addition, had computers and smartphones not been so cheap because of the Chinese workers, the whole Silicon Valley bubble probably would never have come into existence. > it's because the benefits mostly went to the executives of large multinational corporations Why should the benefits of the executives be discounted? Perhaps you believe that the rich should not be made even richer; rather, the poor should receive the most benefits. Then why do you think that American workers, orders of magnitude richer than the Chinese, should be made even richer?
  - jokoon 11y ago
    > Then why do you think that American workers, orders of magnitude richer than the Chinese, should be made even richer? Because that's in the interest of their fellow citizens, since those citizens can vote to influence decisions that concern them, not the chinese. I don't think an american want a chinese to fail, but I don't think an american citizen really holds the fate of chinese people, and I don't think anybody should pretend otherwise. That's mainly about doing things that concerns you, and things that you can reach. The state of the chinese economy is in the hands of the chinese. What I mean is that those decision are beyond the grasp or citizens and politicians. People should care about their own first, others second. Trade is fine, as long as there is no loss on your side. Maybe some want to believe that the world is one uniform place, but the reality of politics say otherwise. Sometimes you have to come back to basic strategy and realities.

netheril96 11y ago

(If we ignore the fact that both sides benefit from the free trade) The central tenet of the rightist ideology is free market and free trade. That one is obvious. The central tenet of the leftist ideology is wealth redistribution, that the rich should compensate for the poor. Thus, given that the Americans are orders of magnitude richer than Chinese, it is only fair that some of the wealth of Americans be redistributed to the Chinese. The international trade involve altruism for the same reason that the aristocrats altruistically share their (previous) privilege with the plebeians.

dragonwriter 11y ago
I don't think you've accurately identified the central tenet of either right-wing or left-wing ideology (though you've correctly identified how much of the current propaganda of the American Right portrays right vs. left ideology as if it were the central tenet of each.)
jokoon 11y ago
When one argues about income redistribution, he does so it can be done in its own country. Also, I don't think shifting labor on poorer country can really be described as income redistribution. Labor isn't income.
- netheril96 11y ago
  > When one argues about income redistribution, he does so it can be done in its own country. Why should wealth redistribution be scoped by country, but not less, not more? The rich class in the United States want to limit the redistribution within themselves, and they are called greedy and evil. Yet when the lower class of the US want to limit the redistribution within the US, and refuse the share with the even poorer, they call themselves the paragons of virtue. Isn't it double standards? And I'm not talking about income redistribution, but wealth redistribution. The opportunity to work is important in that.
  - jokoon 11y ago
    As I said in another comment, one should focus on politics of its own country, not the politics and the complexities of international politics. I don't think you can really argue that politics should cover what is beyond the grasp of the US. Since when will people vote and decide on the well being of non-americans ? It's non sense.

T2_t2 11y ago

> How can you compromise your own citizens for the sake of other countries You don't! Not collectively, not en masse, and not universally. MANY citizens win. And even the people this hurts, they likely are better off because things are so cheap. Would you rather be unemployed in 2016, or 1916? In 2016, you likely have TV, a mobile phone and the internet. The problem is usually in specific areas - geographic locations. A huge part is likely the unwillingness of people to move. Even in the midst of the GFC, mining towns in the midwest were booming. > many videos of Milton Friedman defending free trade, And the example he used - Hong Kong - is EVEN RICHER now. https://www.google.com.au/search?q=gdp+per+capita+hong+kong&oq=gdp+per+capita+hong+kong https://www.google.com.au/search?q=gdp+per+capita+hong+kong&... Free trade DEFINITELY hurts people, but on the whole, makes life better for almost every citizen.