5 ms·

It is possible to view this as an isolated event or a trend. Coming on the heels of BREXIT this is a trend. The attempts at building an interconnected globalis

It is possible to view this as an isolated event or a trend. Coming on the heels of BREXIT this is a trend. The attempts at building an interconnected globalised world are beginning to fail. A bunch of elites decided to create their own trans-national utopia unchecked by borders and dismissed all criticism as racist or bigoted. The globalisation project has been rejected by a majority of the population. Whether it is for economic reasons or just plain bigotry is something for the sociologists to study and not something I can pontificate on. Also people seem to care a LOT about immigration and preserving their culture. Instead of patronising these people it's time we tried to understand their concerns and try to assuage them. There is no genuine leftist alternative. It's a choice between center-right "left" that's sold out to the establishment and the far right.Economists need to stop acting like priests in the medieval ages who justified the existing order . The rural voter who lost his job doesn't care about the theory of comparitive advantage. If this trend holds this will soon take hold in France and other European nations. This is a return to the world of the 1920s. Not gloom and doom but a much more unstable global order with every country for itself. Not what we need when we face planet scale threats like global warming. Get out of your bubble. Hang out more on subreddits you don't agree with. The divide is bridged one person at a time. Life goes on. EDIT: Its a shame they killed this thread.

WalterSear 10y ago
http://i.imgur.com/YTMPBfW.png http://i.imgur.com/YTMPBfW.png
- flukus 10y ago
  Exactly. In a globalized world those workers have to compete with a lot of people below them and would prefer not to.
  - AlexandrB 10y ago
    Meanwhile, the people above them manage to reap all the benefits with none of the downsides. I wonder why?
    - gonvaled 10y ago
      Basically, because the masses buy the "American Dream": anybody can make it big. And since we buy this, we oppose legislation which is going to put limits to our about-to-come rich-me.
gonvaled 10y ago
> A bunch of elites decided to create their own trans-national utopia unchecked by borders and dismissed all criticism as racist or bigoted. The globalisation project has been rejected by a majority of the population. The globalisation project is a consequence of: 1. People move: they have legs. 2. Technology has made moving easier and faster. 3. Technology has made keeping in touch in a decentralized network easier. So it is not the elites, it is technology. You can try to stop it, by force, but you will not succeed and you will create lots of suffering.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- xname2 10y ago
  Have you heard of: law ?
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    When law opposes fundamental human rights, like moving around, and working honestly wherever you want to, giving your best and fighting for your chances in any place in Earth that you decide to call your home, that law is unfair.
    - angersock 10y ago
      That's a great strawman you've got there. None of us would advocate such a law. The fact is that while they sell you on "moving around", they also remove the market barriers that keep you employed and help you earn gas to move and a house to live in. That's the part of the thing you're not addressing.
      - gonvaled 10y ago
        So you tell me that they use tricks to sell you one (good) thing and implement another (bad thing)? And you think they are not going to continue to do that? Specially with somebody at the helm that has been privately doing exactly that for a long time? The USA will need to compete in the global market to sell its products. That means the USA will need to use globalization in order to find the best place to produce with quality and to be able to compete in price. So, retreating from globalization is not an option. You can avoid people entering the country, but this is not going to make your country any richer. And that is for sure not going to guarantee that inequality is going to decrease. For that, you need to tackle inequality directly, by collaborating internationally to avoid loopholes (double Irish and such crap) that steals revenue from countries and concentrates in the hand of the global financial elite. Trump is not going to do any of that.
angersock 10y ago
An excellent post, but just to ride the coattails a little and expand on a point: Folks, this is what happens when you ignore and ostracize and most importantly mock the downtrodden. Let's assume (and this might be an incorrect assumption) that this election was decided by undereducated white males. What has been the positive messaging from the Left and even the intelligent Right for those folks? Which of the angry tweets decrying evil white men helped encourage them to cross party lines? Which of the Ted talks (other than one or two) recognized their plight as a respectable thing they could fix instead of a talking point? Which of the reddit posts refrained from calling them manchildren during GG? Which media posts failed to paint them as bigoted and racist? The fact is, they've had it rough, and the Left failed to show that they would have a place at the table, that they would have any dignity in the future. And so, they lashed out and here we are. Hopefully some of us are paying attention.
- flukus 10y ago
  > Let's assume (and this might be an incorrect assumption) that this election was decided by undereducated white males. Can we start by not calling them un/under-educated? A high school education should be more than enough for most people.
- jmathai 10y ago
  I understand the white working class' response in supporting Trump. That doesn't explain 47% of the vote. There's something else going on and I can't put my finger on it. I personally know people who aren't part of the white working class who voted for Trump but would otherwise find him appalling. Maybe now that the election is over I can ask them in order for me to better understand where they're coming from. For now, I remain perplexed.
inimino 10y ago
> The divide is bridged one person at a time. Well put! > Hang out more on subreddits you don't agree with. Better yet, get off the Internet and seek face-to-face conversations with people around you from different perspectives! I hear a lot of people after every election saying they don't know anybody who voted for the other side. That's a problem.
x0x0 10y ago
Michael Moore nailed it: it's a rust belt brexit [1]. Four blue states in the Great Lakes rust belt -- MI, OH, PA, and WI -- all typically blue, all appear to have voted for Trump. Since I'm from that area, what Moore points out and the free traders refuse to acknowledge is free trade has been absolutely devastating to the region. Sure, maybe you can buy cheap appliances that don't last that long anyway. But all the GM workers and steel workers and so forth are just SOL and education doesn't do a damn thing for them. They're not going to be making iphone apps (not that apps are all that lucrative anyway). Economists / policymakers have lied to us; there's few benefits to globalization and there's a total lack of a meaningful employment policy to replace lost jobs with jobs of equal quality. But hey, Walmart may be hiring! And we wonder why people who worked in manufacturing, at Carrier [2], or at Oreo [3], aren't enthusiastic about free trade or its promoters. [1] http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/ http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/ [2] http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a44548/indiana-factory-outsourcing-manufacturing/ http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a44548/in... [3] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-oreos-nabisco-nafta-tpp-mondelez-perspec-0330-20160329-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-ore...
- gonvaled 10y ago
  > there's few benefits to globalization There are benefits in globalization. There are big problems with inequality. Do not conflate one with the other: globalization is unstoppable, because technology is unstoppable. The whole world must slowly converge to a uniform (richer) standard of living. But that will help few people if we allow those riches to be concentrated in very few hands. Fighting globalization is fighting the wrong enemy: if you (by some miraculous change) are able to remove your country from the globalized world, your country would become poorer. And there is no guarantee that the wealth will be better distributed: the early eighteen centuries economies were not globalized and inequality was a big issue too (bringing about the theory of communism, for example) Globalization does not require inequality. Non globalization does not guarantee shared wealth. We need to fight for globalization and wealth distribution, which is what will guarantee the best standard of living for the whole population.
mynameishere 10y ago
Instead of patronising these people it's time we tried to understand their concerns and try to assuage them. If you understood their concerns you wouldn't try to "assuage" them. You would join them. But anyway, this thread is flagged and dead so who cares. I remember when Obama won and reddit had his victory post at the very top for 48+ hours. Now there's just some shit about Canada's immigration website. And the beat goes on.
reitanqild 10y ago
> Get out of your bubble. Hang out more on subreddits you don't agree with. Agree. Protip: you don't even have to make a lot of noise - just discuss the things that are within reach. I disagree with a significant number of you guys here in a number of cases, yet it seems people mostly like me.
codecamper 10y ago
Yes, the big, looming problem is global warming. It seems at some point there will be a take-over. The only way to force these uncomfortable things on a population who can vote for comfort.
RecentTake33 10y ago
There are some important advances in today's world versus the 1920s. For one, the average human is more easily connected to one another. Within the next hour I could order a crazy amount of raw materials from around the globe. Or donate it to feed a family. Another is we're generally better educated, especially in the western countries. We teach the basics of relativity in public school, whereas it was still being hotly debated at the highest levels, barely within view of the general public. Maybe this is way off, but the wave of "privatization" has seen quite a bit of financial power in the hands of staunch progressives. Control of the higher education, much of the modern economy. The urban areas are largely anti-Trump and make up the bulk of the population. Sam Altman, Tim Cook, etc...you have the power here: Invest in technology to do as OP suggests... listen to and understand "these people", and help them feel whole again. It looks as though we'll have little progressive voice in government. Trump White House, probably two Supreme picks, with control of both sides in Congress, and a hamstrung, red taped up the ass bureaucracy getting in the way of government workers doing legitimately beneficial work. Little representation of progressive ideals. All the above said; This may be a bit reactionary, and I am a bit tipsy, but progressives largely control the modern economy and innovation pipeline. All those tech workers at Google, Apple, YC, financial workers. Left leaning types predominantly control urban government offices in these areas. The most progressive leaning states pay more in Federal dollars than they receive versus conservative states, and have healthier economies. There's a tremendous amount of power there. I hope it's wielded for the benefit of the many. But a coordinated rejection of too conservative an agenda could be called for.

WalterSear 10y ago

http://i.imgur.com/YTMPBfW.png http://i.imgur.com/YTMPBfW.png

flukus 10y ago
Exactly. In a globalized world those workers have to compete with a lot of people below them and would prefer not to.
- AlexandrB 10y ago
  Meanwhile, the people above them manage to reap all the benefits with none of the downsides. I wonder why?
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    Basically, because the masses buy the "American Dream": anybody can make it big. And since we buy this, we oppose legislation which is going to put limits to our about-to-come rich-me.

gonvaled 10y ago

> A bunch of elites decided to create their own trans-national utopia unchecked by borders and dismissed all criticism as racist or bigoted. The globalisation project has been rejected by a majority of the population. The globalisation project is a consequence of: 1. People move: they have legs. 2. Technology has made moving easier and faster. 3. Technology has made keeping in touch in a decentralized network easier. So it is not the elites, it is technology. You can try to stop it, by force, but you will not succeed and you will create lots of suffering.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
xname2 10y ago
Have you heard of: law ?
- gonvaled 10y ago
  When law opposes fundamental human rights, like moving around, and working honestly wherever you want to, giving your best and fighting for your chances in any place in Earth that you decide to call your home, that law is unfair.
  - angersock 10y ago
    That's a great strawman you've got there. None of us would advocate such a law. The fact is that while they sell you on "moving around", they also remove the market barriers that keep you employed and help you earn gas to move and a house to live in. That's the part of the thing you're not addressing.
    - gonvaled 10y ago
      So you tell me that they use tricks to sell you one (good) thing and implement another (bad thing)? And you think they are not going to continue to do that? Specially with somebody at the helm that has been privately doing exactly that for a long time? The USA will need to compete in the global market to sell its products. That means the USA will need to use globalization in order to find the best place to produce with quality and to be able to compete in price. So, retreating from globalization is not an option. You can avoid people entering the country, but this is not going to make your country any richer. And that is for sure not going to guarantee that inequality is going to decrease. For that, you need to tackle inequality directly, by collaborating internationally to avoid loopholes (double Irish and such crap) that steals revenue from countries and concentrates in the hand of the global financial elite. Trump is not going to do any of that.

angersock 10y ago

An excellent post, but just to ride the coattails a little and expand on a point: Folks, this is what happens when you ignore and ostracize and most importantly mock the downtrodden. Let's assume (and this might be an incorrect assumption) that this election was decided by undereducated white males. What has been the positive messaging from the Left and even the intelligent Right for those folks? Which of the angry tweets decrying evil white men helped encourage them to cross party lines? Which of the Ted talks (other than one or two) recognized their plight as a respectable thing they could fix instead of a talking point? Which of the reddit posts refrained from calling them manchildren during GG? Which media posts failed to paint them as bigoted and racist? The fact is, they've had it rough, and the Left failed to show that they would have a place at the table, that they would have any dignity in the future. And so, they lashed out and here we are. Hopefully some of us are paying attention.

flukus 10y ago
> Let's assume (and this might be an incorrect assumption) that this election was decided by undereducated white males. Can we start by not calling them un/under-educated? A high school education should be more than enough for most people.
jmathai 10y ago
I understand the white working class' response in supporting Trump. That doesn't explain 47% of the vote. There's something else going on and I can't put my finger on it. I personally know people who aren't part of the white working class who voted for Trump but would otherwise find him appalling. Maybe now that the election is over I can ask them in order for me to better understand where they're coming from. For now, I remain perplexed.

inimino 10y ago

> The divide is bridged one person at a time. Well put! > Hang out more on subreddits you don't agree with. Better yet, get off the Internet and seek face-to-face conversations with people around you from different perspectives! I hear a lot of people after every election saying they don't know anybody who voted for the other side. That's a problem.

x0x0 10y ago

Michael Moore nailed it: it's a rust belt brexit [1]. Four blue states in the Great Lakes rust belt -- MI, OH, PA, and WI -- all typically blue, all appear to have voted for Trump. Since I'm from that area, what Moore points out and the free traders refuse to acknowledge is free trade has been absolutely devastating to the region. Sure, maybe you can buy cheap appliances that don't last that long anyway. But all the GM workers and steel workers and so forth are just SOL and education doesn't do a damn thing for them. They're not going to be making iphone apps (not that apps are all that lucrative anyway). Economists / policymakers have lied to us; there's few benefits to globalization and there's a total lack of a meaningful employment policy to replace lost jobs with jobs of equal quality. But hey, Walmart may be hiring! And we wonder why people who worked in manufacturing, at Carrier [2], or at Oreo [3], aren't enthusiastic about free trade or its promoters. [1] http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/ http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/ [2] http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a44548/indiana-factory-outsourcing-manufacturing/ http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a44548/in... [3] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-oreos-nabisco-nafta-tpp-mondelez-perspec-0330-20160329-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-ore...

gonvaled 10y ago
> there's few benefits to globalization There are benefits in globalization. There are big problems with inequality. Do not conflate one with the other: globalization is unstoppable, because technology is unstoppable. The whole world must slowly converge to a uniform (richer) standard of living. But that will help few people if we allow those riches to be concentrated in very few hands. Fighting globalization is fighting the wrong enemy: if you (by some miraculous change) are able to remove your country from the globalized world, your country would become poorer. And there is no guarantee that the wealth will be better distributed: the early eighteen centuries economies were not globalized and inequality was a big issue too (bringing about the theory of communism, for example) Globalization does not require inequality. Non globalization does not guarantee shared wealth. We need to fight for globalization and wealth distribution, which is what will guarantee the best standard of living for the whole population.

mynameishere 10y ago

Instead of patronising these people it's time we tried to understand their concerns and try to assuage them. If you understood their concerns you wouldn't try to "assuage" them. You would join them. But anyway, this thread is flagged and dead so who cares. I remember when Obama won and reddit had his victory post at the very top for 48+ hours. Now there's just some shit about Canada's immigration website. And the beat goes on.

reitanqild 10y ago

> Get out of your bubble. Hang out more on subreddits you don't agree with. Agree. Protip: you don't even have to make a lot of noise - just discuss the things that are within reach. I disagree with a significant number of you guys here in a number of cases, yet it seems people mostly like me.

codecamper 10y ago

Yes, the big, looming problem is global warming. It seems at some point there will be a take-over. The only way to force these uncomfortable things on a population who can vote for comfort.

RecentTake33 10y ago

There are some important advances in today's world versus the 1920s. For one, the average human is more easily connected to one another. Within the next hour I could order a crazy amount of raw materials from around the globe. Or donate it to feed a family. Another is we're generally better educated, especially in the western countries. We teach the basics of relativity in public school, whereas it was still being hotly debated at the highest levels, barely within view of the general public. Maybe this is way off, but the wave of "privatization" has seen quite a bit of financial power in the hands of staunch progressives. Control of the higher education, much of the modern economy. The urban areas are largely anti-Trump and make up the bulk of the population. Sam Altman, Tim Cook, etc...you have the power here: Invest in technology to do as OP suggests... listen to and understand "these people", and help them feel whole again. It looks as though we'll have little progressive voice in government. Trump White House, probably two Supreme picks, with control of both sides in Congress, and a hamstrung, red taped up the ass bureaucracy getting in the way of government workers doing legitimately beneficial work. Little representation of progressive ideals. All the above said; This may be a bit reactionary, and I am a bit tipsy, but progressives largely control the modern economy and innovation pipeline. All those tech workers at Google, Apple, YC, financial workers. Left leaning types predominantly control urban government offices in these areas. The most progressive leaning states pay more in Federal dollars than they receive versus conservative states, and have healthier economies. There's a tremendous amount of power there. I hope it's wielded for the benefit of the many. But a coordinated rejection of too conservative an agenda could be called for.