4 ms·

> It sucks, but you have to just accept it. It's interesting that we all, or so many of us, think 'you just have to accept it', as if it's a law of nature. To

> It sucks, but you have to just accept it. It's interesting that we all, or so many of us, think 'you just have to accept it', as if it's a law of nature. Today, I had a revelation: Trying to grasp the revolt of working class Americans against both the Democratic and Republican parties, it suddenly struck me: Why should that group 'just accept' globalization? (Or immigration or deregulation or the free market pricing of everything from health care to college ...) So far all the benefits have been accrued by a very narrow subset of society, while working class life has become harder and well-paying jobs and social mobility more scarce. Probably not coincidentally, the people benefitting are those who had a seat at the table when the rules were written. Everyone else, per both parties, would see the benefits magically 'trickle down' - but of course they haven't, and it's been decades. So why should working class voters take that deal?

paulddraper 11y ago
Because fighting it is like punching a hurricane. It's based on fundamental forces that won't change no matter how hard you fight. If standard of living is imbalanced, it will eventually find its level. Instead of fighting forces of nature, we should use them. E.g. reducing corporate tax.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > fighting it is like punching a hurricane I strongly disagree. Protectionists have been elected many times in many countries. In the UK, there's a good chance they will with draw from the EU. Worldwide, progress for the WTO is dead. In the US, Trump and Sanders generally are against globalization, and even Clinton has rejected the TPP (on the campaign trail; we'll see what happens if she gets elected). Provide some evidence that globalization, especially in its current form, is irresistable. > Instead of fighting forces of nature, we should use them. E.g. reducing corporate tax. But that hasn't helped the working class, so why should they want to do that? So even more wealth can accrue to the wealthy few? > If standard of living is imbalanced, it will eventually find its level. And in the long run, we are all dead.
  - paulddraper 11y ago
    > Protectionists have been elected many times in many countries. I'm not saying it's impossible to punch a hurricane. I'm saying you can only harm yourself. Like the U.S. did with tariffs to turn a sudden recession in the 1920 into the Great Depression (aided by subsequent massive government spending crowding out industry investment).

paulddraper 11y ago

Because fighting it is like punching a hurricane. It's based on fundamental forces that won't change no matter how hard you fight. If standard of living is imbalanced, it will eventually find its level. Instead of fighting forces of nature, we should use them. E.g. reducing corporate tax.

hackuser 11y ago
> fighting it is like punching a hurricane I strongly disagree. Protectionists have been elected many times in many countries. In the UK, there's a good chance they will with draw from the EU. Worldwide, progress for the WTO is dead. In the US, Trump and Sanders generally are against globalization, and even Clinton has rejected the TPP (on the campaign trail; we'll see what happens if she gets elected). Provide some evidence that globalization, especially in its current form, is irresistable. > Instead of fighting forces of nature, we should use them. E.g. reducing corporate tax. But that hasn't helped the working class, so why should they want to do that? So even more wealth can accrue to the wealthy few? > If standard of living is imbalanced, it will eventually find its level. And in the long run, we are all dead.
- paulddraper 11y ago
  > Protectionists have been elected many times in many countries. I'm not saying it's impossible to punch a hurricane. I'm saying you can only harm yourself. Like the U.S. did with tariffs to turn a sudden recession in the 1920 into the Great Depression (aided by subsequent massive government spending crowding out industry investment).