5 ms·

It makes me very glad that we are starting to question globalization. Whether or not it is a bad thing --- and it may very well be a good thing --- is still an

by gragas 10y ago

It makes me very glad that we are starting to question globalization. Whether or not it is a bad thing --- and it may very well be a good thing --- is still an open question in my mind. But for decades now it seems that globalization has been very unjustly considered good by default.

euyyn 10y ago
Globalization has been questioned for decades.
omegaworks 10y ago
It's "good" but good is a moral argument. We have to examine it on a deeper level, who wins and who loses. According to economists, it's good because it grows the pie. It makes everyone wealthier. According to labor, the pie grows but disproportionately the benefits accrue to capital. Without support, whether it be redistribution via tax or job retraining, labor can not react to shock as efficiently.
- r00fus 10y ago
  Also keep in mind, labor can't outcompete capital because capital outflows are not regulated but labor can't move easily, so is replaced by outsourced labor. I wonder how many companies will now opt for corporate inversion (Hey, Trump won - we want to leave just like you want to), and whether there will be any real push to combat that from the US govt.
- bbctol 10y ago
  Moreover, it's an undervalued question as to whether or not people want more pie, or a greater percentage of the pie. Utilitarianism is tricky at best, and money does not map onto utility; people who feel they're being screwed are not comforted by the promise that if things were more fair, they'd have less cheap stuff. Power over your own destiny is more important to people than consumer goods, and it looks like globalism might concentrate real power in the hands of the few, even if it makes us all able to buy more toys. (There's a reason the only people you see proposing universal basic income are those who wouldn't need it.)
  - davidw 10y ago
    > whether or not people want more pie, or a greater percentage of the pie The former gets us medicine and computers and the internet and airplanes and expeditions to mars. The latter gets you warlords with local fiefdoms.
    - bbctol 10y ago
      This is also true, and does not contradict what I said. If people made all their choices about ensuring peace and prosperity, the world would be a heck of a lot more prosperous and peaceful. We do not.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Who loses? Labor in the developed world. Who wins? Labor in the developing world. In the past 30 years, half a billion people have been dragged out of poverty. That's an enormous win... ... at the price of the US and European working class. That's a very big loss.
  - woofyman 10y ago
    Causing Political instability in those countries is dangerous
  - omegaworks 10y ago
    I don't think it's as zero sum as this. We could have done better to support labor in the developed world.

by gragas 10y ago

euyyn 10y ago

Globalization has been questioned for decades.

omegaworks 10y ago

It's "good" but good is a moral argument. We have to examine it on a deeper level, who wins and who loses. According to economists, it's good because it grows the pie. It makes everyone wealthier. According to labor, the pie grows but disproportionately the benefits accrue to capital. Without support, whether it be redistribution via tax or job retraining, labor can not react to shock as efficiently.

r00fus 10y ago
Also keep in mind, labor can't outcompete capital because capital outflows are not regulated but labor can't move easily, so is replaced by outsourced labor. I wonder how many companies will now opt for corporate inversion (Hey, Trump won - we want to leave just like you want to), and whether there will be any real push to combat that from the US govt.
bbctol 10y ago
Moreover, it's an undervalued question as to whether or not people want more pie, or a greater percentage of the pie. Utilitarianism is tricky at best, and money does not map onto utility; people who feel they're being screwed are not comforted by the promise that if things were more fair, they'd have less cheap stuff. Power over your own destiny is more important to people than consumer goods, and it looks like globalism might concentrate real power in the hands of the few, even if it makes us all able to buy more toys. (There's a reason the only people you see proposing universal basic income are those who wouldn't need it.)
- davidw 10y ago
  > whether or not people want more pie, or a greater percentage of the pie The former gets us medicine and computers and the internet and airplanes and expeditions to mars. The latter gets you warlords with local fiefdoms.
  - bbctol 10y ago
    This is also true, and does not contradict what I said. If people made all their choices about ensuring peace and prosperity, the world would be a heck of a lot more prosperous and peaceful. We do not.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Who loses? Labor in the developed world. Who wins? Labor in the developing world. In the past 30 years, half a billion people have been dragged out of poverty. That's an enormous win... ... at the price of the US and European working class. That's a very big loss.
- woofyman 10y ago
  Causing Political instability in those countries is dangerous
- omegaworks 10y ago
  I don't think it's as zero sum as this. We could have done better to support labor in the developed world.