19 ms·

Globalization’s losers are revolting

105 points by tomduncalf 10y ago

pasbesoin 10y ago
Good. I'm to the point of telling my friends I'm about 50% likely to vote for Trump. Let it burn. And I don't mean this rhetorically. I wouldn't put too much stock in polls, this time around. P.S. In terms of being an effective, ethical leader, I think Trump is a terrible choice. But, I think the extant system needs to go. As I said, let it burn.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Um, do you have any idea what "let it burn" is going to look like, in terms of human suffering? And those on the short end of the stick currently are likely to get more than their fair share of that suffering. So I cannot agree with you. Bad as things are, they'd have to be a lot worse for "let it burn" to be an appropriate response.
  - burnitdown 10y ago
    Um, do you have any idea of what "continue to do what we have been doing" is going to look like in terms of human suffering? The system is broken. The long decent into madness is completely unnecessary. The quicker it dies, the quicker we can pivot.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      > Um, do you have any idea of what "continue to do what we have been doing" is going to look like in terms of human suffering? I think I do, yes. If you think it's within the same order of magnitude as "let it burn", I suspect you have a very limited imagination. > The system is broken. To paraphrase The Princess Bride: There's a big difference between "mostly broken" and "all broken". I don't think it's "all broken". > The long decent into madness is completely unnecessary. The quicker it dies, the quicker we can pivot. But the fast descent into madness may not be necessary either. And if not, then going there voluntarily is incredibly unwise.
      - burnitdown 10y ago
        Very large groups of people are already on the other side. They are ready and have been for a while. If you can't feel the squeeze, you consider yourself extremely lucky.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - antisthenes 10y ago
    > And those on the short end of the stick currently are likely to get more than their fair share of that suffering. Consider a simple thought experiment in punitive game theory. Consider person A (non-wealthy) and B (wealthy). If person A wants to punish person B and has the opportunity to do so at cost X to themselves, while inflicting cost 10X on person B, it makes sense for them to do so. It is essentially a bargaining advantage - in fact, this sort of punitive bargaining technique is really the only leverage the less wealthy have against the capitalist class. This whole principle lay behind the formation of unions, because while the punitive bargaining power of one person is meaningless, when a good portion of your work force refuses to work, you are suffering real losses and are forced to negotiate. This is the logic behind letting the system burn and I think Brexit actually confirmed this theory much better than back-of-the-envelope game theory ever could. In just a few days, the British elite lost how much of its wealth, compared to the bottom half of the population? > Bad as things are, they'd have to be a lot worse for "let it burn" to be an appropriate response. This is completely subjective and a matter of perspective. It also depends on how long-term your view is. The optimal strategy here is not as clear as it may seem.
    - BallinBige 10y ago
      TIL about punitive game theory
      - antisthenes 10y ago
        I'm sorry, that was a qualitative term that I made up on the spot. The situation more accurately falls somewhere between game theory and public choice theory, but there's no official term for it afaik.
    - ryandrake 10y ago
      Also, consider that the system burning may actually benefit the ~50% or so who vote to burn it. Who wins when "the global economy" improves? Largely the already wealthy. Who wins when the stock market goes up? At least in the USA, about 50% of us do not [1]. If everyone in the bottom 50% loses 1% of their wealth while everyone in the top 50% loses 10% of their wealth, those initially at the bottom, while now still likely at the bottom, are now (when considered relatively) doing significantly better than they were before. They would rationally vote for such a deal. If you don't believe that, look at the reverse: when you get a 1% raise and your neighbor gets a 10% raise, you end up worse off. (Look at Bay Area housing prices when one group of people quickly becomes wealthier than everyone else) 1: http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/10/investing/investing-52-percent-americans-have-no-money-in-stocks/ http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/10/investing/investing-52-perce...
gortok 10y ago
Tip: If you've run out of 'free articles' to read this month, you can open an incognito window (or 'private browsing') on your favorite browser and paste the link in. The 'web' button works for the WSJ, but not the WaPo.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  Ditto for the New York Times and The Economist.
- amyjess 10y ago
  Checking if the page is available on http://archive.is http://archive.is is also a nice trick, and it's totally browser-agnostic.
- specialp 10y ago
  Probably going to get down-voted to hell for this, but you all ever think of supporting those whom you are reading double digit number of articles a month from with a subscription? They aren't terribly expensive. Decent news sources are dying off and being replaced with junk.
  - whamlastxmas 10y ago
    No, because the information in articles is usually available in literally hundreds of other places with nearly identical content. That someone on Hacker News submitted a paywalled article is not a reason to support them, it's more an argument to provide a different source. WaPo is just as much "junk" as many other sites, depending on your perspective.
  - gortok 10y ago
    No. The price for a digital subscription for the WaPo is too high to justify paying for it; especially when I don't read the site every day; I only read it whenever it's linked to from Twitter or Hacker News. I'd gladly support ads for WaPo, but I'm not going to pay for something that isn't crucial to my day; and WaPo is not crucial to my day.
- 10y ago
Mikeb85 10y ago
Glad they point this out, although it's been quite obvious to economists for awhile. And yes, it is only the beginning. The EU will fall, Trump will win, and free trade will be scaled back until we figure out a better way of taking care of our citizens (and the welfare state/guaranteed income might be the answer, but not at current levels of immigration).
- jessriedel 10y ago
  If it was so obvious to those economists that "Leave" would win this particular referendum, they could have made millions trading on that confidence.
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    If it was so obvious to those economists that "Leave" would win this particular referendum, they could have made millions trading on that confidence. I keep on telling people that there is an extreme disconnect between the "upper" and "lower" echelons of society. The cultural/societal disconnect is stark and huge -- to the point where people can't even overcome it for millions of dollars! Warning: There is now an extreme disconnect between the "upper" and "lower" echelons of society!
  - Mikeb85 10y ago
    I guarantee plenty of traders say it coming. But most traders aren't writing for mainstream publications either.
    - jessriedel 10y ago
      Those "plenty of traders" were in the small minority. If they were in the majority, then the markets wouldn't have moved so much following the outcome! So yes, before a messay probabilistic evet, there was a minority of experts who thought it would go one way...but a majority who thought it would go the other. Hardly obvious that Leave would win!
    - kristianc 10y ago
dgllghr 10y ago
You know, I have a lot more sympathy for the under-privileged and the under-served who have politics with which I disagree when I see articles categorizing them as losers. Maybe sympathy is a good lesson here.
- josinalvo 10y ago
  I was afraid the article would go with the bad connotation of losers (i.e.: people that 'deserve to lose') but, reading the article, it felt more just like a descriptive connotation (i.e.: people that are losing money and quality of life) Still, your point is generally valid
  - throwanem 10y ago
    You can't talk about "losers" in modern American English without invoking that connotation. I am quite certain that whoever wrote that headline knows this; you don't get to produce content for an A-list blog like the Washington Post without having a working knowledge of semiotics and the dialect in which you're writing.
    - cvwright 10y ago
      I think it's a subtle (OK, maybe not so subtle) jab at Trump and his supporters. He uses this kind of language all the time -- calling people he doesn't like "losers". The author here is attempting to be clever by turning around and using the same trick against them. I wonder if it had the desired effect...
      - r00fus 10y ago
        Too clever by half; wrestling with a pig in the mud only makes the pig happy and you full of mud. Don't use other people's argumentative frames if you actually disagree with them.
      - throwanem 10y ago
        Sounds like WaPo is still smarting over getting its press card pulled. (As they should be! It was a brilliant move, and it's had them on the back foot ever since - their latter coverage of Trump reads like a cross between red-top tabloid and schoolyard bigmouth.)
godisdad 10y ago
see also: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/mark-ames/33836/we-the-spiteful http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/mark-ames/33836/we-the-s...
OliverJones 10y ago
It's true that financial capitalism doesn't work for most people. A consequence of globalization has been, to coin a phrase, "rising inequality." Financial capitalism puts the developed economies on the same track toward inequality as the underdeveloped extractive economies. For example, Tim Cook's Apple has a huge hoard of cash. But their powerful investors (Icahn, for example) won't let them spend it on developing new products, training workers, building new factories, paying taxes to help develop infrastructure, or even raising wages much. So it just accumulates. It serves as collateral so Apple can borrow money to buy back stock. So the wall street boys can have bigger megayachts. There's no way to vote against financial capitalism. So people vote for proxies. The Brexit vote, and the strength of the movements behind Bernie Sanders and the casino developer from New Jersey are those proxies. I wonder whether the developed world's political leadership can figure out how to unwind financial capitalism without the help of a global pandemic, famine, or great war. It's seeming less and less likely. As for "the end of history," I'll have some of whatever Fukuyama was smoking when that vision flitted across his consciousness.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  Financial capitalism puts the developed economies on the same track toward inequality as the underdeveloped extractive economies. Not quite the same track. The poor in the developed economies are far better off. The feeling of injustice is equally strong, however, due to the way human psychology works. That is a real problem societies need to address.
  - RobertoG 10y ago
    "The poor in the developed economies are far better off" The grandparent said "the same track". People are not revolting because they had bad times they are revolting because they don't see the end of it. They see a trend. So, who say that they (we) are not going to finish like the poor in the not developed world? For instance, in Europe there was a de facto 'social contract', the welfare state, that is being dismantled using as excuse the need for 'austerity'.
    - 10y ago
dkarapetyan 10y ago
The world has not had losers in an absolute sense for a while now. Relatively there is always a loser but as far as survival matters are concerned if you are in a stable region of the world then it is mostly a solved problem. I don't think this is an example of "losers revolting" but just another instance of the less organized masses working against their own interests while being cajoled by slightly more organized political savants in order to prop up their own interests.
- chdjdjdnc 10y ago
  You're right! Those not-losers are so successful that some can even afford refrigerators!
dang 10y ago
"The world's losers" is linkbait, and taking the article's argument on its own terms, Brexit is hardly the beginning, so that's misleading (and linkbait too). Therefore the HN guidelines mandate a change of title. If anyone can suggest a better (more accurate and neutral) title, we can change it again.
niftich 10y ago
People look out and vote for their own self-interest. Previously the two goals may have aligned, but that chart showing income growth per percentile bracket is extremely telling. It's natural that economic policy would shift in response to unfavorable outcomes. This may mean severing free-trade agreements in favor of protectionism. But it remains to be seen whether these changes are drastic enough to alter foreign policy, and jeopardize military alliances we've since the last world war.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
marcusgarvey 10y ago
Combine this current sentiment with the results from the job losses to come from self-driving vehicles and automation...volatility ahead.
- noobermin 10y ago
  What do you think then, is now extreme measures like BIG or negative income taxes imperative and no longer just nice ideas?
  - marcusgarvey 10y ago
    I think it's time for the powers that be to activate Plan B. I would prefer Plan B to be something like a basic income. But it could also be out-of-the-box ideas, like "let's have a major war to distract the homefront and focus energy on an external enemy."
WalterBright 10y ago
Consider the free trade zone that is the US. Would anyone think it is a good idea to put a tariff wall around California?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  No, it doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't make any sense for Britain, either (though the US and the EU aren't the same thing.) But the results of the dissatisfaction with the way globalization isn't working aren't optimal solutions (or even positive progress), they are simply symptoms of anger for which the political system is offering no good solutions (and often not even acknowledging).
- noobermin 10y ago
  This has been said before. The different states in the United States are far more alike than say the UK and Poland.
  - RobertoG 10y ago
    That is not the problem. The problem is that the Euro-area has not countercyclical stabilizers: In USA, if some states have problems, the federal government will compensate the fall in spending. In the Euro-area, if a state have problems, not only it's not going to receive surplus from other countries but the troika is going to made it to kill internal demand. So the Euro-area has procyclical automatisms.. What is totally crazy.
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    The states in the US used to be far different than they are now. Free trade and free movement of people within the US has been a homogenizing influence as well as making the US an economic powerhouse (taking full advantage of the principle of comparative advantage). Recall that the southern states used to be so different from the northern ones they were willing to start a war over it.
- bluecalm 10y ago
  It's not obvious that it isn't. While it would obviously suck for California it could be good to incentivize starting companies elsewhere. Consider introducing 50% tariff for all IT related services coming from California. The business would be booming everywhere else in no time. If you get rid of those tariffs in 5-10 years maybe the net result would be better for people. It's not obvious at all that it wouldn't be.
basseq 10y ago
2016 is shaping up to be an interesting year, and the worldview espoused in this article is one reason. While the EU or other institutions may be "right" in their aspirations, the fact of the matter is that the status quo simply isn't working for a large number of people. It's no surprise then that these "losers" are seeking something better for themselves. They may not know what the right answer is, but no one does. And the argument that "we should keep trying the same thing" eventually falls flat with no results. So a headlong leap into the unknown looks better than pounding your head against the same wall over and over again. Which means this boils down to a very obvious realization: people who don't see the benefits of the status quo don't like the status quo. To those for whom the status quo is working, this comes as a shock. And for whatever reason, this year is the one where that minority becomes a majority. What I've found shocking in all this is the vitrol of the "winners". Brexiters (and Trump voters) have been called naive, idiots, racists, xenophobes, sheeple, and worse. ("Losers" comes to mind.) No matter what happens as a result of the UK/EU decision, the U.S. presidential election, or other policy changes around the world, we have to figure out how to fix the problem at the core of all this. Why so many people are unhappy. And name-calling isn't going to help.
- capote 10y ago
  It's disappointing to me that some people defend racists and xenophobes against being called racists and xenophobes. This is what they are, and it's completely appropriate to call them that, and worse. Please note the "status quo" is in fact moving away from racism and xenophobia, very slowly. This is much better than scrapping the "status quo" in favor of plunging back into racism and xenophobia. If the "status quo" isn't working for you and you want to scrap it in favor of Trump or Brexit, then you probably are not affected by issues like racism and xenophobia. And you need to look around you at minorities, immigrants, and Muslims, and consider them carefully before making a vote. For them, the "status quo" is definitely an improvement over Trump and Brexit, and we definitely shouldn't forget about them just because we're upset with things changing very slowly.
  - basseq 10y ago
    This is a "guilty by association" logical fallacy. While some Brexitors are racist xenophobes, not all are. I find it hard to believe that 51% of the (voting) public is racist. This is the same thing that underpins the erroneous, "All Muslims are terrorists!" trope. Of course they're not! Your last paragraph makes a solid point, but it's a tough point to make. You're asking people to effectively vote against their own best interests because it's in the best interests of someone else. Any rational voter will rightly wonder why they should have to suffer to better someone else: shouldn't there be a solution that benefits all? (Or, bluntly, a solution that impacts a minority of voters who can't change the status quo?)
noobermin 10y ago
I'm not sure I entirely buy this. Aren't the same groups who tried to hoodwink us into thinking income and wealth inequalities are natural, normal, unavoidable, or even non-existent the same folks who were on the side of the Brexit? That was my impression, at least.
- Someone 10y ago
  One must distinguish those voting for the Brexit from the politicians advocating for it. I doubt many of the former are free market advocates, but the latter may be because they typically are not part of the former group. Many politicians are (somewhat) opportunistic and change opinion whenever they think it gives them more power. That makes sense, as, for example, one may prefer getting a seat advocating beliefs that are 80% aligned with one's belief to getting no seat advocating one's own beliefs. In extreme cases, opportunism takes the upper hand, though, and people or parties simply move to where the votes are. One could argue even that is not a completely bad thing. What's wrong with a politician so devoted to his profession that he is willing to set aside his own preferences for those of the people he serves? In some sense, it is like a physician giving birth control recipes to those who want them while personally being against birth control. Hard to understand, maybe, and also not something one should expect from everybody, but not necessarily a sign of an evil mind.
iua 10y ago
This is an interesting point- MEP Daniel Hannan on the differences between the US Constitution and the EU's- https://youtu.be/dS6hQQ2pyco https://youtu.be/dS6hQQ2pyco
bhouston 10y ago
In these types of changes there are riches to be made. The current crop of Russian billionaires made the seeds of their riches in the turbulence transition from Communism to Capitalism. There are likely to be a lot of opportunities here as well if you can find the opportunities.
- brbrodude 10y ago
  "made"
swagtricker 10y ago
Let's face the facts of the last 50 years - democracy didn't eventually "destroy" communism: capitalism did. How did we think capitalism wouldn't eventually turn on democracy as well?
- louithethrid 10y ago
  The problem is that democracy needs a systematic destruction of unbound great fortunes so they dont aggregate and break the system. Im sure updated democracys to come will have that. Same as the "konstruktive misstrauensvotum" in germany came after hitler happend.
whazor 10y ago
Globalization is unfair. The biggest problem is that minimum incomes are different. So that people from one side in the planet can do the same job for less. In Europe it is even more crazy, people from country A can work in country B for a lower wage. It is unfair for the people who want to contribute fairly into their own society, they get frustrated and feel like a loser.
- tim333 10y ago
  Well life is unfair. Globalization has probably made things fairer globally - China for example is far closer in income levels to the west than it was. It does create problems for some groups though including many of the Brexiters.
  - nicknamexyz 10y ago
    Have a look at India, too, where numerous tech-talents are coming from. In my opinion, it is also a matter of Western arrogance. There is a constant preaching about how strong the Western economy is, which might be the current case, but given the preconditions in China and India, I think they might achieve even higher standards than the West. (Look at their new supercomputer.) Globalization will probably result in a greater competition and people will have to struggle more in order to make a living.
    - IndianAstronaut 10y ago
      People forget that a worker is also a consumer. An Indian or Chinese worker is now a consumer of goods like Ford cars, Coca Cola, Intel chips, etc.
- nicknamexyz 10y ago
  I don't think that globalization itself is unfair. Different standards cause it to appear unfair. If the average wage amounts to 800€ in country A, it might feel more satisfactory for a person from A to earn the double or triple income in country B, although that amount might still be below average in country B.
- 10y ago
keithpeter 10y ago
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/193UcK-0Ec185Pf_WZNNZ5noR5NKW_WgJXrN-idb7qSg/ https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/193UcK-0Ec185Pf_WZNNZ... http://civichall.org/civicist/defined-by-the-filter-bubble/ http://civichall.org/civicist/defined-by-the-filter-bubble/ May help with English context.
kazinator 10y ago
> That's because Britain is essentially ripping up its free trade deal with the rest of Europe. Countries can engage in free trade deals without losing their sovereignty. For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93United_States_Free_Trade_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93United_States_F... This hasn't entailed Canada adopting the US dollar or joining the US as the 51st state.
csense 10y ago
As someone who grew up in the Rust Belt, US and world politics have been very interesting this year. It seems like the issues that are most important to my hometown are finally making an impression on world politicians. Entire local economies were broken by the first wave of factory closings due to globalization in the 1980's, and still haven't really recovered. During the 2008 primaries, Obama recognized the problem: "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania, and, like, a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate, and they have not." He nailed it on the head. Too bad he went on to say, "They get bitter. They cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them." Translation: They're conservatives [1] and racists, so they deserve it. And now we know that the Bush administration isn't the last presidency to let these places fall through the cracks. This thread's top comment says "They may not know what the right answer is, but no one does." An important clue is that the crisis in these communities started when factories closed because it was cheaper to do it overseas. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the answer is reversing the globalization -- put some taxes on imports. Another comment from this thread: "Furthermore, people keep talking about the free trade zone as if they were children and the word "free" were a piece of candy. Free trade is not an absolute good and not a great thing when it stifles a country's growth. The US became an economic superpower not because of free trade but because of protectionism..." Donald Trump wants to put a 45% tariff on Chinese imports. A lot of people I know would overlook a lot of his shortcomings for that policy position alone. I'm starting to wonder if I might be one of them. [1] Many Rust Belt states have historically had a strong labor union presence, and to this day are classified as bellwethers and battleground states.
- nickik 10y ago
  Lets see howuch the will love the reverse of globalisation when the buy any modern product for a much higher price an the factories, if the come back, will pay a terrible wage because their is no global market to service. Essentially what this would mean is that the rest of prpductive america would have to pay you money for making their lives worse of. With the additional benefit of also massivly diminishing the rest of the countries chances to compete in the actual competitive market so the can pay your inflated, but tine wage. Basically you (your ideas) make everybody worse of (and I mean everybody in the world) so that you can feel good about having a job instead of living on wellfare. Wellfare would actually be cheaper if you want to live on the pockets of the rest of your country.
glasz 10y ago
"the world has enjoyed an unprecedented run of peace, prosperity and cooperation the last 25 years" and publications wonder why their readers are running. i can't even run fast enough from utter shit like that. or am i wrong and the world only consists of a few states in europe?! you just cannot make this up.
- RGamma 10y ago
  So it was precedented before? When has there been equally little wars, equally much prosperity and cooperation (measured relative to the state of civilization at the time)? Considering what an unfriendly place the world has been in the past centuries (diseases, terrible working conditions, decade-long wars) this is not an unreasonable statement to make. These things still exist, but certainly less pronounced when averaged over time and space. Edit: See http://singularityhub.com/2016/06/27/why-the-world-is-better-than-you-think-in-10-powerful-charts/ http://singularityhub.com/2016/06/27/why-the-world-is-better...
teslaberry 10y ago
this would be the best response http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/06/27/thoughts-on-brexit-from-someone-who-spends-time-in-the-forgotten-places/ http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/06/27/thoughts-on-brexit-f...
hoju 10y ago
Why would leaving the EU obviously make the UK "permanently poorer"? Norway and Switzerland are doing fine outside the EU. The majority of UK's exports are with non-EU countries, but the EU has few external FTA's (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agre...). This is because any deal can be vetoed by a member state= - an example is a recent proposed deal with Australia was derailed because Italy wanted to protect their tomato industry. Consequently the EU still has no FTA's with US (TTIP likely not passed until 2020), China, India, Japan, Brazil, etc. And these non-EU countries are where the actual growth is happening in the world. Leaving the EU will allow UK the flexibility to develop trade agreements with the world and increase their exports outside the EU. "Permanently poorer"? - this is propaganda.
macawfish 10y ago
"And yet, and yet. It's easy for a generation that has only known peace and relative prosperity to forget that the arc of the political universe is long, and it bends toward wherever you point it. If that's toward chauvinism and isolationism, well, that's what you'll get."

105 points by tomduncalf 10y ago

Good. I'm to the point of telling my friends I'm about 50% likely to vote for Trump. Let it burn. And I don't mean this rhetorically. I wouldn't put too much stock in polls, this time around. P.S. In terms of being an effective, ethical leader, I think Trump is a terrible choice. But, I think the extant system needs to go. As I said, let it burn.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Um, do you have any idea what "let it burn" is going to look like, in terms of human suffering? And those on the short end of the stick currently are likely to get more than their fair share of that suffering. So I cannot agree with you. Bad as things are, they'd have to be a lot worse for "let it burn" to be an appropriate response.
- burnitdown 10y ago
  Um, do you have any idea of what "continue to do what we have been doing" is going to look like in terms of human suffering? The system is broken. The long decent into madness is completely unnecessary. The quicker it dies, the quicker we can pivot.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    > Um, do you have any idea of what "continue to do what we have been doing" is going to look like in terms of human suffering? I think I do, yes. If you think it's within the same order of magnitude as "let it burn", I suspect you have a very limited imagination. > The system is broken. To paraphrase The Princess Bride: There's a big difference between "mostly broken" and "all broken". I don't think it's "all broken". > The long decent into madness is completely unnecessary. The quicker it dies, the quicker we can pivot. But the fast descent into madness may not be necessary either. And if not, then going there voluntarily is incredibly unwise.
    - burnitdown 10y ago
      Very large groups of people are already on the other side. They are ready and have been for a while. If you can't feel the squeeze, you consider yourself extremely lucky.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- antisthenes 10y ago
  > And those on the short end of the stick currently are likely to get more than their fair share of that suffering. Consider a simple thought experiment in punitive game theory. Consider person A (non-wealthy) and B (wealthy). If person A wants to punish person B and has the opportunity to do so at cost X to themselves, while inflicting cost 10X on person B, it makes sense for them to do so. It is essentially a bargaining advantage - in fact, this sort of punitive bargaining technique is really the only leverage the less wealthy have against the capitalist class. This whole principle lay behind the formation of unions, because while the punitive bargaining power of one person is meaningless, when a good portion of your work force refuses to work, you are suffering real losses and are forced to negotiate. This is the logic behind letting the system burn and I think Brexit actually confirmed this theory much better than back-of-the-envelope game theory ever could. In just a few days, the British elite lost how much of its wealth, compared to the bottom half of the population? > Bad as things are, they'd have to be a lot worse for "let it burn" to be an appropriate response. This is completely subjective and a matter of perspective. It also depends on how long-term your view is. The optimal strategy here is not as clear as it may seem.
  - BallinBige 10y ago
    TIL about punitive game theory
    - antisthenes 10y ago
      I'm sorry, that was a qualitative term that I made up on the spot. The situation more accurately falls somewhere between game theory and public choice theory, but there's no official term for it afaik.
  - ryandrake 10y ago
    Also, consider that the system burning may actually benefit the ~50% or so who vote to burn it. Who wins when "the global economy" improves? Largely the already wealthy. Who wins when the stock market goes up? At least in the USA, about 50% of us do not [1]. If everyone in the bottom 50% loses 1% of their wealth while everyone in the top 50% loses 10% of their wealth, those initially at the bottom, while now still likely at the bottom, are now (when considered relatively) doing significantly better than they were before. They would rationally vote for such a deal. If you don't believe that, look at the reverse: when you get a 1% raise and your neighbor gets a 10% raise, you end up worse off. (Look at Bay Area housing prices when one group of people quickly becomes wealthier than everyone else) 1: http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/10/investing/investing-52-percent-americans-have-no-money-in-stocks/ http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/10/investing/investing-52-perce...

gortok 10y ago

Tip: If you've run out of 'free articles' to read this month, you can open an incognito window (or 'private browsing') on your favorite browser and paste the link in. The 'web' button works for the WSJ, but not the WaPo.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
Ditto for the New York Times and The Economist.
amyjess 10y ago
Checking if the page is available on http://archive.is http://archive.is is also a nice trick, and it's totally browser-agnostic.
specialp 10y ago
Probably going to get down-voted to hell for this, but you all ever think of supporting those whom you are reading double digit number of articles a month from with a subscription? They aren't terribly expensive. Decent news sources are dying off and being replaced with junk.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  No, because the information in articles is usually available in literally hundreds of other places with nearly identical content. That someone on Hacker News submitted a paywalled article is not a reason to support them, it's more an argument to provide a different source. WaPo is just as much "junk" as many other sites, depending on your perspective.
- gortok 10y ago
  No. The price for a digital subscription for the WaPo is too high to justify paying for it; especially when I don't read the site every day; I only read it whenever it's linked to from Twitter or Hacker News. I'd gladly support ads for WaPo, but I'm not going to pay for something that isn't crucial to my day; and WaPo is not crucial to my day.
10y ago

Mikeb85 10y ago

Glad they point this out, although it's been quite obvious to economists for awhile. And yes, it is only the beginning. The EU will fall, Trump will win, and free trade will be scaled back until we figure out a better way of taking care of our citizens (and the welfare state/guaranteed income might be the answer, but not at current levels of immigration).

jessriedel 10y ago
If it was so obvious to those economists that "Leave" would win this particular referendum, they could have made millions trading on that confidence.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  If it was so obvious to those economists that "Leave" would win this particular referendum, they could have made millions trading on that confidence. I keep on telling people that there is an extreme disconnect between the "upper" and "lower" echelons of society. The cultural/societal disconnect is stark and huge -- to the point where people can't even overcome it for millions of dollars! Warning: There is now an extreme disconnect between the "upper" and "lower" echelons of society!
- Mikeb85 10y ago
  I guarantee plenty of traders say it coming. But most traders aren't writing for mainstream publications either.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    Those "plenty of traders" were in the small minority. If they were in the majority, then the markets wouldn't have moved so much following the outcome! So yes, before a messay probabilistic evet, there was a minority of experts who thought it would go one way...but a majority who thought it would go the other. Hardly obvious that Leave would win!
  - kristianc 10y ago

dgllghr 10y ago

You know, I have a lot more sympathy for the under-privileged and the under-served who have politics with which I disagree when I see articles categorizing them as losers. Maybe sympathy is a good lesson here.

josinalvo 10y ago
I was afraid the article would go with the bad connotation of losers (i.e.: people that 'deserve to lose') but, reading the article, it felt more just like a descriptive connotation (i.e.: people that are losing money and quality of life) Still, your point is generally valid
- throwanem 10y ago
  You can't talk about "losers" in modern American English without invoking that connotation. I am quite certain that whoever wrote that headline knows this; you don't get to produce content for an A-list blog like the Washington Post without having a working knowledge of semiotics and the dialect in which you're writing.
  - cvwright 10y ago
    I think it's a subtle (OK, maybe not so subtle) jab at Trump and his supporters. He uses this kind of language all the time -- calling people he doesn't like "losers". The author here is attempting to be clever by turning around and using the same trick against them. I wonder if it had the desired effect...
    - r00fus 10y ago
      Too clever by half; wrestling with a pig in the mud only makes the pig happy and you full of mud. Don't use other people's argumentative frames if you actually disagree with them.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      Sounds like WaPo is still smarting over getting its press card pulled. (As they should be! It was a brilliant move, and it's had them on the back foot ever since - their latter coverage of Trump reads like a cross between red-top tabloid and schoolyard bigmouth.)

godisdad 10y ago

see also: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/mark-ames/33836/we-the-spiteful http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/mark-ames/33836/we-the-s...

OliverJones 10y ago

It's true that financial capitalism doesn't work for most people. A consequence of globalization has been, to coin a phrase, "rising inequality." Financial capitalism puts the developed economies on the same track toward inequality as the underdeveloped extractive economies. For example, Tim Cook's Apple has a huge hoard of cash. But their powerful investors (Icahn, for example) won't let them spend it on developing new products, training workers, building new factories, paying taxes to help develop infrastructure, or even raising wages much. So it just accumulates. It serves as collateral so Apple can borrow money to buy back stock. So the wall street boys can have bigger megayachts. There's no way to vote against financial capitalism. So people vote for proxies. The Brexit vote, and the strength of the movements behind Bernie Sanders and the casino developer from New Jersey are those proxies. I wonder whether the developed world's political leadership can figure out how to unwind financial capitalism without the help of a global pandemic, famine, or great war. It's seeming less and less likely. As for "the end of history," I'll have some of whatever Fukuyama was smoking when that vision flitted across his consciousness.

stcredzero 10y ago
Financial capitalism puts the developed economies on the same track toward inequality as the underdeveloped extractive economies. Not quite the same track. The poor in the developed economies are far better off. The feeling of injustice is equally strong, however, due to the way human psychology works. That is a real problem societies need to address.
- RobertoG 10y ago
  "The poor in the developed economies are far better off" The grandparent said "the same track". People are not revolting because they had bad times they are revolting because they don't see the end of it. They see a trend. So, who say that they (we) are not going to finish like the poor in the not developed world? For instance, in Europe there was a de facto 'social contract', the welfare state, that is being dismantled using as excuse the need for 'austerity'.
  - 10y ago

dkarapetyan 10y ago

The world has not had losers in an absolute sense for a while now. Relatively there is always a loser but as far as survival matters are concerned if you are in a stable region of the world then it is mostly a solved problem. I don't think this is an example of "losers revolting" but just another instance of the less organized masses working against their own interests while being cajoled by slightly more organized political savants in order to prop up their own interests.

chdjdjdnc 10y ago
You're right! Those not-losers are so successful that some can even afford refrigerators!

dang 10y ago

"The world's losers" is linkbait, and taking the article's argument on its own terms, Brexit is hardly the beginning, so that's misleading (and linkbait too). Therefore the HN guidelines mandate a change of title. If anyone can suggest a better (more accurate and neutral) title, we can change it again.

niftich 10y ago

People look out and vote for their own self-interest. Previously the two goals may have aligned, but that chart showing income growth per percentile bracket is extremely telling. It's natural that economic policy would shift in response to unfavorable outcomes. This may mean severing free-trade agreements in favor of protectionism. But it remains to be seen whether these changes are drastic enough to alter foreign policy, and jeopardize military alliances we've since the last world war.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

marcusgarvey 10y ago

Combine this current sentiment with the results from the job losses to come from self-driving vehicles and automation...volatility ahead.

noobermin 10y ago
What do you think then, is now extreme measures like BIG or negative income taxes imperative and no longer just nice ideas?
- marcusgarvey 10y ago
  I think it's time for the powers that be to activate Plan B. I would prefer Plan B to be something like a basic income. But it could also be out-of-the-box ideas, like "let's have a major war to distract the homefront and focus energy on an external enemy."

WalterBright 10y ago

Consider the free trade zone that is the US. Would anyone think it is a good idea to put a tariff wall around California?

dragonwriter 10y ago
No, it doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't make any sense for Britain, either (though the US and the EU aren't the same thing.) But the results of the dissatisfaction with the way globalization isn't working aren't optimal solutions (or even positive progress), they are simply symptoms of anger for which the political system is offering no good solutions (and often not even acknowledging).
noobermin 10y ago
This has been said before. The different states in the United States are far more alike than say the UK and Poland.
- RobertoG 10y ago
  That is not the problem. The problem is that the Euro-area has not countercyclical stabilizers: In USA, if some states have problems, the federal government will compensate the fall in spending. In the Euro-area, if a state have problems, not only it's not going to receive surplus from other countries but the troika is going to made it to kill internal demand. So the Euro-area has procyclical automatisms.. What is totally crazy.
- WalterBright 10y ago
  The states in the US used to be far different than they are now. Free trade and free movement of people within the US has been a homogenizing influence as well as making the US an economic powerhouse (taking full advantage of the principle of comparative advantage). Recall that the southern states used to be so different from the northern ones they were willing to start a war over it.
bluecalm 10y ago
It's not obvious that it isn't. While it would obviously suck for California it could be good to incentivize starting companies elsewhere. Consider introducing 50% tariff for all IT related services coming from California. The business would be booming everywhere else in no time. If you get rid of those tariffs in 5-10 years maybe the net result would be better for people. It's not obvious at all that it wouldn't be.

basseq 10y ago

2016 is shaping up to be an interesting year, and the worldview espoused in this article is one reason. While the EU or other institutions may be "right" in their aspirations, the fact of the matter is that the status quo simply isn't working for a large number of people. It's no surprise then that these "losers" are seeking something better for themselves. They may not know what the right answer is, but no one does. And the argument that "we should keep trying the same thing" eventually falls flat with no results. So a headlong leap into the unknown looks better than pounding your head against the same wall over and over again. Which means this boils down to a very obvious realization: people who don't see the benefits of the status quo don't like the status quo. To those for whom the status quo is working, this comes as a shock. And for whatever reason, this year is the one where that minority becomes a majority. What I've found shocking in all this is the vitrol of the "winners". Brexiters (and Trump voters) have been called naive, idiots, racists, xenophobes, sheeple, and worse. ("Losers" comes to mind.) No matter what happens as a result of the UK/EU decision, the U.S. presidential election, or other policy changes around the world, we have to figure out how to fix the problem at the core of all this. Why so many people are unhappy. And name-calling isn't going to help.

capote 10y ago
It's disappointing to me that some people defend racists and xenophobes against being called racists and xenophobes. This is what they are, and it's completely appropriate to call them that, and worse. Please note the "status quo" is in fact moving away from racism and xenophobia, very slowly. This is much better than scrapping the "status quo" in favor of plunging back into racism and xenophobia. If the "status quo" isn't working for you and you want to scrap it in favor of Trump or Brexit, then you probably are not affected by issues like racism and xenophobia. And you need to look around you at minorities, immigrants, and Muslims, and consider them carefully before making a vote. For them, the "status quo" is definitely an improvement over Trump and Brexit, and we definitely shouldn't forget about them just because we're upset with things changing very slowly.
- basseq 10y ago
  This is a "guilty by association" logical fallacy. While some Brexitors are racist xenophobes, not all are. I find it hard to believe that 51% of the (voting) public is racist. This is the same thing that underpins the erroneous, "All Muslims are terrorists!" trope. Of course they're not! Your last paragraph makes a solid point, but it's a tough point to make. You're asking people to effectively vote against their own best interests because it's in the best interests of someone else. Any rational voter will rightly wonder why they should have to suffer to better someone else: shouldn't there be a solution that benefits all? (Or, bluntly, a solution that impacts a minority of voters who can't change the status quo?)

noobermin 10y ago

I'm not sure I entirely buy this. Aren't the same groups who tried to hoodwink us into thinking income and wealth inequalities are natural, normal, unavoidable, or even non-existent the same folks who were on the side of the Brexit? That was my impression, at least.

Someone 10y ago
One must distinguish those voting for the Brexit from the politicians advocating for it. I doubt many of the former are free market advocates, but the latter may be because they typically are not part of the former group. Many politicians are (somewhat) opportunistic and change opinion whenever they think it gives them more power. That makes sense, as, for example, one may prefer getting a seat advocating beliefs that are 80% aligned with one's belief to getting no seat advocating one's own beliefs. In extreme cases, opportunism takes the upper hand, though, and people or parties simply move to where the votes are. One could argue even that is not a completely bad thing. What's wrong with a politician so devoted to his profession that he is willing to set aside his own preferences for those of the people he serves? In some sense, it is like a physician giving birth control recipes to those who want them while personally being against birth control. Hard to understand, maybe, and also not something one should expect from everybody, but not necessarily a sign of an evil mind.

iua 10y ago

This is an interesting point- MEP Daniel Hannan on the differences between the US Constitution and the EU's- https://youtu.be/dS6hQQ2pyco https://youtu.be/dS6hQQ2pyco

bhouston 10y ago

In these types of changes there are riches to be made. The current crop of Russian billionaires made the seeds of their riches in the turbulence transition from Communism to Capitalism. There are likely to be a lot of opportunities here as well if you can find the opportunities.

brbrodude 10y ago
"made"

swagtricker 10y ago

Let's face the facts of the last 50 years - democracy didn't eventually "destroy" communism: capitalism did. How did we think capitalism wouldn't eventually turn on democracy as well?

louithethrid 10y ago
The problem is that democracy needs a systematic destruction of unbound great fortunes so they dont aggregate and break the system. Im sure updated democracys to come will have that. Same as the "konstruktive misstrauensvotum" in germany came after hitler happend.

whazor 10y ago

Globalization is unfair. The biggest problem is that minimum incomes are different. So that people from one side in the planet can do the same job for less. In Europe it is even more crazy, people from country A can work in country B for a lower wage. It is unfair for the people who want to contribute fairly into their own society, they get frustrated and feel like a loser.

tim333 10y ago
Well life is unfair. Globalization has probably made things fairer globally - China for example is far closer in income levels to the west than it was. It does create problems for some groups though including many of the Brexiters.
- nicknamexyz 10y ago
  Have a look at India, too, where numerous tech-talents are coming from. In my opinion, it is also a matter of Western arrogance. There is a constant preaching about how strong the Western economy is, which might be the current case, but given the preconditions in China and India, I think they might achieve even higher standards than the West. (Look at their new supercomputer.) Globalization will probably result in a greater competition and people will have to struggle more in order to make a living.
  - IndianAstronaut 10y ago
    People forget that a worker is also a consumer. An Indian or Chinese worker is now a consumer of goods like Ford cars, Coca Cola, Intel chips, etc.
nicknamexyz 10y ago
I don't think that globalization itself is unfair. Different standards cause it to appear unfair. If the average wage amounts to 800€ in country A, it might feel more satisfactory for a person from A to earn the double or triple income in country B, although that amount might still be below average in country B.
10y ago

keithpeter 10y ago

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/193UcK-0Ec185Pf_WZNNZ5noR5NKW_WgJXrN-idb7qSg/ https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/193UcK-0Ec185Pf_WZNNZ... http://civichall.org/civicist/defined-by-the-filter-bubble/ http://civichall.org/civicist/defined-by-the-filter-bubble/ May help with English context.

kazinator 10y ago

> That's because Britain is essentially ripping up its free trade deal with the rest of Europe. Countries can engage in free trade deals without losing their sovereignty. For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93United_States_Free_Trade_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93United_States_F... This hasn't entailed Canada adopting the US dollar or joining the US as the 51st state.

csense 10y ago

As someone who grew up in the Rust Belt, US and world politics have been very interesting this year. It seems like the issues that are most important to my hometown are finally making an impression on world politicians. Entire local economies were broken by the first wave of factory closings due to globalization in the 1980's, and still haven't really recovered. During the 2008 primaries, Obama recognized the problem: "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania, and, like, a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate, and they have not." He nailed it on the head. Too bad he went on to say, "They get bitter. They cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them." Translation: They're conservatives [1] and racists, so they deserve it. And now we know that the Bush administration isn't the last presidency to let these places fall through the cracks. This thread's top comment says "They may not know what the right answer is, but no one does." An important clue is that the crisis in these communities started when factories closed because it was cheaper to do it overseas. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the answer is reversing the globalization -- put some taxes on imports. Another comment from this thread: "Furthermore, people keep talking about the free trade zone as if they were children and the word "free" were a piece of candy. Free trade is not an absolute good and not a great thing when it stifles a country's growth. The US became an economic superpower not because of free trade but because of protectionism..." Donald Trump wants to put a 45% tariff on Chinese imports. A lot of people I know would overlook a lot of his shortcomings for that policy position alone. I'm starting to wonder if I might be one of them. [1] Many Rust Belt states have historically had a strong labor union presence, and to this day are classified as bellwethers and battleground states.

nickik 10y ago
Lets see howuch the will love the reverse of globalisation when the buy any modern product for a much higher price an the factories, if the come back, will pay a terrible wage because their is no global market to service. Essentially what this would mean is that the rest of prpductive america would have to pay you money for making their lives worse of. With the additional benefit of also massivly diminishing the rest of the countries chances to compete in the actual competitive market so the can pay your inflated, but tine wage. Basically you (your ideas) make everybody worse of (and I mean everybody in the world) so that you can feel good about having a job instead of living on wellfare. Wellfare would actually be cheaper if you want to live on the pockets of the rest of your country.

glasz 10y ago

"the world has enjoyed an unprecedented run of peace, prosperity and cooperation the last 25 years" and publications wonder why their readers are running. i can't even run fast enough from utter shit like that. or am i wrong and the world only consists of a few states in europe?! you just cannot make this up.

RGamma 10y ago
So it was precedented before? When has there been equally little wars, equally much prosperity and cooperation (measured relative to the state of civilization at the time)? Considering what an unfriendly place the world has been in the past centuries (diseases, terrible working conditions, decade-long wars) this is not an unreasonable statement to make. These things still exist, but certainly less pronounced when averaged over time and space. Edit: See http://singularityhub.com/2016/06/27/why-the-world-is-better-than-you-think-in-10-powerful-charts/ http://singularityhub.com/2016/06/27/why-the-world-is-better...

teslaberry 10y ago

this would be the best response http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/06/27/thoughts-on-brexit-from-someone-who-spends-time-in-the-forgotten-places/ http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/06/27/thoughts-on-brexit-f...

hoju 10y ago

Why would leaving the EU obviously make the UK "permanently poorer"? Norway and Switzerland are doing fine outside the EU. The majority of UK's exports are with non-EU countries, but the EU has few external FTA's (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agre...). This is because any deal can be vetoed by a member state= - an example is a recent proposed deal with Australia was derailed because Italy wanted to protect their tomato industry. Consequently the EU still has no FTA's with US (TTIP likely not passed until 2020), China, India, Japan, Brazil, etc. And these non-EU countries are where the actual growth is happening in the world. Leaving the EU will allow UK the flexibility to develop trade agreements with the world and increase their exports outside the EU. "Permanently poorer"? - this is propaganda.

macawfish 10y ago

"And yet, and yet. It's easy for a generation that has only known peace and relative prosperity to forget that the arc of the political universe is long, and it bends toward wherever you point it. If that's toward chauvinism and isolationism, well, that's what you'll get."