5 ms·

I wouldn't say it's globalism per se. More that in a recession everyone looks for someone to blame. It's far easier to blame "those dirty foreigners" than it

by adwf 10y ago

I wouldn't say it's globalism per se. More that in a recession everyone looks for someone to blame. It's far easier to blame "those dirty foreigners" than it is to accept the vagaries of economics. Or that maybe the blame is almost entirely on ourselves. It's a kind of fundamental attribution error [1]. People are very quick to blame others for their personal characteristics ie. lazy foreigners (personal), no good scroungers of welfare (personal), instead of the situational context of recession/war/etc. Whereas when it comes to talking about themselves, they're hard working people who just can't get a break (situational), the recession is at fault (situational), no education because my teachers were bad and the school was crap (situational), the foreigners took our jobs (situational)... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

coldtea 10y ago
>I wouldn't say it's globalism per se. More that in a recession everyone looks for someone to blame. It's also globalism. It took jobs abroad and fucked up the working class royally -- and it didn't do much for the middle class either, which is also shrinking. The idea of a totally open market is bad if you also want to secure what you have here and now. Of course it makes big bucks for the rich doing the "opening" part (and keeping the market rigged in 100 other ways), so economists, one of the most whored out "scientific" professions, always sitting next to those in power as advisors, will just blab about how beneficial it is.
jules 10y ago
How ironic. Have you considered that maybe people who vote for certain parties may have good reasons for it? I don't like those parties either, but saying people vote for them simply because people are stupid racists is ridiculous. You're pathologizing people who have opinions that you don't like while most likely not actually having spoken with them and talked about what they think and why they think it. It's easier to blame "those dirty racists" than it is to accept the vagaries of reality.
- golemotron 10y ago
  So much of that goes on. http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberali...
- adwf 10y ago
  Not ironic at all, just coincidence. Of course there are situations out of our control like recession and war. But blaming others doesn't actually fix anything. All that anti-globalisation will do is massively raise prices on everything. In my grandfathers era, a working man would have two sets of clothes, one for work and one for sunday best. Nowadays, even the poorest in a western society have a plethora of clothing. That is down to cheap chinese labour. You can't get round it; if you raise tariffs, you end up with expensive chinese clothes. If you then build your own factories and bring it back onshore, you end up with expensive western-made clothes. The people may have good old-fashioned industrial jobs, but they can no longer afford to live. And that's before you even get into retaliatory tarriffs, where our high-price items suddenly lose half their export market. How much of Apple's revenue growth over the last few years has been from iPhone sales in China?
  - jules 10y ago
    How did you jump from talking about racists to tariffs for China?
    - adwf 10y ago
      Because the original comment I responded to was about globalism. My response assumed that talking about Trump and globalism was dog-whistling for the less pleasant elements of society and so touched on both racism and real economic issues.
      - jules 10y ago
        > My response assumed that talking about Trump and globalism was dog-whistling for the less pleasant elements of society Yes, and my response was precisely about that assumption, which is really a different issue than economic policies like tariffs for China. This doesn't just apply to the reaction to Trump, but also to the reaction to the (supposed) rise of the right in Europe, the main topic. The assumption that these people are voting like that because they're stupid and racist is going to kill the left.
golemotron 10y ago
The trend is not toward blame - it is toward cultural and economic locality. It's ok to have a preference to live in a place where you can drink and stay out at clubs all night, and it's ok to have a preference toward living in a place where you can't drink or socialize with the opposite sex at all. Some places will choose to allow bottles of olive oil on table. Others will will consider it unhygienic ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10076201/EU-drops-olive-oil-jug-ban-after-public-outcry.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10076201... ). The problem comes from trying to merge all cultures instead of considering that there can be different cultures for different places. That would be a better multiculturalism than what we currently call multiculturalism.
- adwf 10y ago
  I apologise if I took your words out context. I'm just so fed up with dog-whistle politics, of which anti-globalisation is one. ie. You mentioned Trump in the first sentence and then talked about globalisation being the problem, which is usually just a dog-whistle politics talking point for blaming foreigners for everything. Likewise with multi-culturalism. Usually when people bring that up in a debate, it's followed by some sort of "We must pull up the drawbridge" kind of xenophobia. I absolutely agree that there are some incompatible cultures out there. The middle east refugee crisis is highlighting quite a few of them. We should absolutely do more to integrate people into our culture when they arrive on our shores. But the solution isn't to say, "your culture, in your place", because as with the refugee crisis, they don't always stay in their place. The solution is to get tougher on regimes and people that still think these barbaric practices are acceptable.
  - golemotron 10y ago
    I hope you see the issue with seeing things in terms of "dog-whistle politics." It washes over legitimate concerns and narrows the Overton Window. Some (not all) people who call out dog-whistles are conscious of that effect and they use it as a weapon. Ideally we could have a debate about whether it is acceptable for small groups of people to create and enforce local cultures provided people can make choices about whether to participate in those cultures or not. I don't think we are mature enough to do that yet.
vlehto 10y ago
I haven't heard any of the anti-immigration people to actually complain about no jobs. I have heard lots of academics speculating that the problem is no jobs. What the anti-immigration people are actually complaining? Loss of security. Not now, but possibly in the future. Not to themselves, but their families and social groups. Now if we look at IPCC raports about global warming and speculate what might happen to populations? Probably mass migration. When has that ever went down smoothly? Pretty valid concerns if you ask me. It's just that the timescales are off by few decades. And also some of the most hideous acts in history we're made "to pre-emptively stop X", so they don't really get my support.
- adwf 10y ago
  They are absolutely valid concerns, but when people talk about the problems of globalisation or multi-culturalism, they usually follow it up with talk about building walls and pulling up drawbridges. Take the climate change induced migration example; having millions of starving desperate people on the other side of a wall (literal or metaphorical), is not going to be a pretty situation. It's the classic philosophy problem: If your child is starving to death, would you steal a loaf of bread? Or would you watch them die? By building walls, you're forcing that decision on millions of refugees. Would you blame anyone for their actions in such a situation? By pushing people away we're only kicking the can down the road, it will only ever get worse. Whereas if we show compassion and show them how great our society is, maybe they'll realise that it's our way of life that gives us these good things. It's hard to call someone the devil when they're being nice to you. When was the last time we were nice to anyone in the middle east outside Israel?
  - vlehto 10y ago
    I think it's fundamentally trust issue and identity issue bundled together. There is 2000km between Germany and Syria. People in Syria are different group than desendants of Syrians in Germany. German govermnent is different than most individual native germans. Nobody has to abide by any rules or agreements, it just happens that currently some rules make sense for large majority. For now. Someone being nice to someone else doesn't exactly guarantee anything to anybody else. I think the walls are completely meaningless in every sense. They don't make anybody terrorist, refugee or safe. Compassion might just as well show them that we are foolish. Violence might just show them that we have loot to protect. It's hard to call someone devil when they are nice to you, but it's still relatively easy to be asshole yourself. I advocate pretty much just two things. Dropping less bombs to middle east and cutting social security form refugees. That should fight the root causes of current immigration in short/medium term.
marincounty 10y ago
I'm just assuming your an American? I partially agree that our some people do abuse this attribution error. That said, there's still a lot of folks, like myself who blame one sided dubious trade agreements(with job programs that didn't target the areas of the country hit hardest. The federal money was dolled out to all states? "We will let you pass NAFTA, but you must retain, or pass on money to social programs, or retrain workers?" We have over 400 retaining programs. There's no real oversize. And what are we retracing people to do? Coding--come on. Coding takes on a certain personality type, and intelligence. I've never been ok with building products in the lowest wage/regulation countries. I've never been ok with lobby groups dictating what government officials would do. Dictating bills that politicians don't read. I'm not fond of countries that dump dump product on our shores, just to decimate industries. Ex. Steel. I find it crazy that foreigners can pick up the phone and by my nextdoor neighbor's house, and leave it empty. I don't like currency manipulation. As to the foreigners taking our jobs. I don't know. I know chit jobs are truely chit jobs now. I remember guys in the 79-80's who got out of serving a correctional term. A lot would start up gardening service, including tree trimming/removal, and slowly get an an apartment, and then a house. Those days are over. I remember guys opening up independent automotive shops, those days are over. My point is there use to be jobs that felons could start up. I can't think of a sigle one, that hasen't been completely taking over by foreigners. There use to be so many chit jobs employers would make exceptions and hire a felon. Again those jobs are practically gone. I do blame an immigration policy that lets people break the law. I don't care about foreign illegal workers. I care about the corporations/individuals who don't get prosecuted for hiring them. I blame this free Fed money, that guys like me have no access to. I understood the no interest rate policy of the FED after 2008; I don't understand it now. Poor poeople put there savings in banks, and rely on healthy 5 percent interest rates. We put our money on cd's. I'm not blaming conservatives, or liberals. If I was president, I would get rid of 50 percent of government regulation on day one. I would keep an eye on certain industries though, like the Pharmaceutical, and any industry that hurts the enviorment. I sound like a Trump fan? No--I'm not. I don't trust the man. I belive the Health Care Act is too important in principle to just get rid of. I don't trust he will appoint the right judges. I just don't trust him. So, yes I agree that people lash out at what's conveinient, or a seemly easy target--the Attribution error? I do think that poor people, people with no support(family, or didn't network like a cheerleader, or otherwise.) have some legitimate gripes. I don't think these grips are just psychological projection. (I look at our GDP and cringe. I look at our foreign exchange rate, and I believe it was -15 percent? That's, I believe the lowest it's been since WW2?) I do wish I moved to France once I got out of college. I had a chance, and didn't go. I just like the way they think. I like what they seem to value.

by adwf 10y ago

coldtea 10y ago

>I wouldn't say it's globalism per se. More that in a recession everyone looks for someone to blame. It's also globalism. It took jobs abroad and fucked up the working class royally -- and it didn't do much for the middle class either, which is also shrinking. The idea of a totally open market is bad if you also want to secure what you have here and now. Of course it makes big bucks for the rich doing the "opening" part (and keeping the market rigged in 100 other ways), so economists, one of the most whored out "scientific" professions, always sitting next to those in power as advisors, will just blab about how beneficial it is.

jules 10y ago

How ironic. Have you considered that maybe people who vote for certain parties may have good reasons for it? I don't like those parties either, but saying people vote for them simply because people are stupid racists is ridiculous. You're pathologizing people who have opinions that you don't like while most likely not actually having spoken with them and talked about what they think and why they think it. It's easier to blame "those dirty racists" than it is to accept the vagaries of reality.

golemotron 10y ago
So much of that goes on. http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberali...
adwf 10y ago
Not ironic at all, just coincidence. Of course there are situations out of our control like recession and war. But blaming others doesn't actually fix anything. All that anti-globalisation will do is massively raise prices on everything. In my grandfathers era, a working man would have two sets of clothes, one for work and one for sunday best. Nowadays, even the poorest in a western society have a plethora of clothing. That is down to cheap chinese labour. You can't get round it; if you raise tariffs, you end up with expensive chinese clothes. If you then build your own factories and bring it back onshore, you end up with expensive western-made clothes. The people may have good old-fashioned industrial jobs, but they can no longer afford to live. And that's before you even get into retaliatory tarriffs, where our high-price items suddenly lose half their export market. How much of Apple's revenue growth over the last few years has been from iPhone sales in China?
- jules 10y ago
  How did you jump from talking about racists to tariffs for China?
  - adwf 10y ago
    Because the original comment I responded to was about globalism. My response assumed that talking about Trump and globalism was dog-whistling for the less pleasant elements of society and so touched on both racism and real economic issues.
    - jules 10y ago
      > My response assumed that talking about Trump and globalism was dog-whistling for the less pleasant elements of society Yes, and my response was precisely about that assumption, which is really a different issue than economic policies like tariffs for China. This doesn't just apply to the reaction to Trump, but also to the reaction to the (supposed) rise of the right in Europe, the main topic. The assumption that these people are voting like that because they're stupid and racist is going to kill the left.

golemotron 10y ago

The trend is not toward blame - it is toward cultural and economic locality. It's ok to have a preference to live in a place where you can drink and stay out at clubs all night, and it's ok to have a preference toward living in a place where you can't drink or socialize with the opposite sex at all. Some places will choose to allow bottles of olive oil on table. Others will will consider it unhygienic ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10076201/EU-drops-olive-oil-jug-ban-after-public-outcry.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10076201... ). The problem comes from trying to merge all cultures instead of considering that there can be different cultures for different places. That would be a better multiculturalism than what we currently call multiculturalism.

adwf 10y ago
I apologise if I took your words out context. I'm just so fed up with dog-whistle politics, of which anti-globalisation is one. ie. You mentioned Trump in the first sentence and then talked about globalisation being the problem, which is usually just a dog-whistle politics talking point for blaming foreigners for everything. Likewise with multi-culturalism. Usually when people bring that up in a debate, it's followed by some sort of "We must pull up the drawbridge" kind of xenophobia. I absolutely agree that there are some incompatible cultures out there. The middle east refugee crisis is highlighting quite a few of them. We should absolutely do more to integrate people into our culture when they arrive on our shores. But the solution isn't to say, "your culture, in your place", because as with the refugee crisis, they don't always stay in their place. The solution is to get tougher on regimes and people that still think these barbaric practices are acceptable.
- golemotron 10y ago
  I hope you see the issue with seeing things in terms of "dog-whistle politics." It washes over legitimate concerns and narrows the Overton Window. Some (not all) people who call out dog-whistles are conscious of that effect and they use it as a weapon. Ideally we could have a debate about whether it is acceptable for small groups of people to create and enforce local cultures provided people can make choices about whether to participate in those cultures or not. I don't think we are mature enough to do that yet.

vlehto 10y ago

I haven't heard any of the anti-immigration people to actually complain about no jobs. I have heard lots of academics speculating that the problem is no jobs. What the anti-immigration people are actually complaining? Loss of security. Not now, but possibly in the future. Not to themselves, but their families and social groups. Now if we look at IPCC raports about global warming and speculate what might happen to populations? Probably mass migration. When has that ever went down smoothly? Pretty valid concerns if you ask me. It's just that the timescales are off by few decades. And also some of the most hideous acts in history we're made "to pre-emptively stop X", so they don't really get my support.

adwf 10y ago
They are absolutely valid concerns, but when people talk about the problems of globalisation or multi-culturalism, they usually follow it up with talk about building walls and pulling up drawbridges. Take the climate change induced migration example; having millions of starving desperate people on the other side of a wall (literal or metaphorical), is not going to be a pretty situation. It's the classic philosophy problem: If your child is starving to death, would you steal a loaf of bread? Or would you watch them die? By building walls, you're forcing that decision on millions of refugees. Would you blame anyone for their actions in such a situation? By pushing people away we're only kicking the can down the road, it will only ever get worse. Whereas if we show compassion and show them how great our society is, maybe they'll realise that it's our way of life that gives us these good things. It's hard to call someone the devil when they're being nice to you. When was the last time we were nice to anyone in the middle east outside Israel?
- vlehto 10y ago
  I think it's fundamentally trust issue and identity issue bundled together. There is 2000km between Germany and Syria. People in Syria are different group than desendants of Syrians in Germany. German govermnent is different than most individual native germans. Nobody has to abide by any rules or agreements, it just happens that currently some rules make sense for large majority. For now. Someone being nice to someone else doesn't exactly guarantee anything to anybody else. I think the walls are completely meaningless in every sense. They don't make anybody terrorist, refugee or safe. Compassion might just as well show them that we are foolish. Violence might just show them that we have loot to protect. It's hard to call someone devil when they are nice to you, but it's still relatively easy to be asshole yourself. I advocate pretty much just two things. Dropping less bombs to middle east and cutting social security form refugees. That should fight the root causes of current immigration in short/medium term.

marincounty 10y ago

I'm just assuming your an American? I partially agree that our some people do abuse this attribution error. That said, there's still a lot of folks, like myself who blame one sided dubious trade agreements(with job programs that didn't target the areas of the country hit hardest. The federal money was dolled out to all states? "We will let you pass NAFTA, but you must retain, or pass on money to social programs, or retrain workers?" We have over 400 retaining programs. There's no real oversize. And what are we retracing people to do? Coding--come on. Coding takes on a certain personality type, and intelligence. I've never been ok with building products in the lowest wage/regulation countries. I've never been ok with lobby groups dictating what government officials would do. Dictating bills that politicians don't read. I'm not fond of countries that dump dump product on our shores, just to decimate industries. Ex. Steel. I find it crazy that foreigners can pick up the phone and by my nextdoor neighbor's house, and leave it empty. I don't like currency manipulation. As to the foreigners taking our jobs. I don't know. I know chit jobs are truely chit jobs now. I remember guys in the 79-80's who got out of serving a correctional term. A lot would start up gardening service, including tree trimming/removal, and slowly get an an apartment, and then a house. Those days are over. I remember guys opening up independent automotive shops, those days are over. My point is there use to be jobs that felons could start up. I can't think of a sigle one, that hasen't been completely taking over by foreigners. There use to be so many chit jobs employers would make exceptions and hire a felon. Again those jobs are practically gone. I do blame an immigration policy that lets people break the law. I don't care about foreign illegal workers. I care about the corporations/individuals who don't get prosecuted for hiring them. I blame this free Fed money, that guys like me have no access to. I understood the no interest rate policy of the FED after 2008; I don't understand it now. Poor poeople put there savings in banks, and rely on healthy 5 percent interest rates. We put our money on cd's. I'm not blaming conservatives, or liberals. If I was president, I would get rid of 50 percent of government regulation on day one. I would keep an eye on certain industries though, like the Pharmaceutical, and any industry that hurts the enviorment. I sound like a Trump fan? No--I'm not. I don't trust the man. I belive the Health Care Act is too important in principle to just get rid of. I don't trust he will appoint the right judges. I just don't trust him. So, yes I agree that people lash out at what's conveinient, or a seemly easy target--the Attribution error? I do think that poor people, people with no support(family, or didn't network like a cheerleader, or otherwise.) have some legitimate gripes. I don't think these grips are just psychological projection. (I look at our GDP and cringe. I look at our foreign exchange rate, and I believe it was -15 percent? That's, I believe the lowest it's been since WW2?) I do wish I moved to France once I got out of college. I had a chance, and didn't go. I just like the way they think. I like what they seem to value.