6 ms·
This is a shame. Globalism is good for people overall, and the US has almost instantly lost a lot of credibility and influence in the region (especially in cont
by georgeglue1 10y ago
This is a shame. Globalism is good for people overall, and the US has almost instantly lost a lot of credibility and influence in the region (especially in contrast to China).
EDIT: I'm amazed to see all other comments so far are anti-trade.
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 10y agoI think most of the TPP discussion was FUD, but the backers of TPP are partially responsible for that because it was negotiated in secret (even our own Congress was forbidden from taking notes while viewing it!). They did a horrible job of marketing it to the American people. There are issues with TPP, but it seems they can be fixed and we shouldn't toss the entire thing. But I think a lot of the fear is based on ignorance of trade agreements. Obama is smartly trying to move the country closer to Asia because he sees that is where the growth is. Growth in Europe is anemic and doesn't seem to be getting better anytime soon, so why not align your country with the region that is growing and seems to be looking to the future? Plus we already do a lot of business with Asia, so why not improve relations through better trade deals?
- return0 10y agoWhile globalism just took a big slap in the face, i dont think it's even reversible [it's too big to fail]. Trump may soften some edges, shake it up a bit, but I don't expect fundamental changes. Remember that populist leaders generally don't hold on to positions.
- YuriNiyazov 10y agoDid you miss the part where the election was partially a referendum on globalism?
- jrs235 10y ago25% does not make a mandate. Edit: Only ~50% of eligible voters voted. Half of those voted for the winner. That's only 25% that actively voted in support of the winner.
- YuriNiyazov 10y agoThe 25% is a consequence of the Electoral College system. And before someone says "well, we should just go by popular vote" - if the election was determined by popular vote, the campaigns would have completely different strategies, with different participation and outcomes.
- vacri 10y agoGiven that the vote was basically 50-50, and that most of the votes are cast outside the swing states that got the attention, then no, the 'mandate' result would not have been different from 25%. Different tactics wouldn't shift that general number much.
- jrs235 10y agoThe 25% is not a consequence of the Electoral College system. The 25% is a consequence of only 50% of eligible voters voting, half of which voted for the winner.
- lambertsimnel 10y agoTrue, but the electoral college contributes to the problem. In winner-takes-all states that are heavily for one party or the other, there is not much incentive to vote. Turnout would almost certainly be higher under a national popular vote.
- woliveirajr 10y agoThen people could complain or discuss about voluntary versus obligatory voting, then about having just two real candidates versus more (powerful) parties, then about limited vs unlimited funding, then private vs company vs public funding, then about quotas for any category you name, then ... There are so many combinations and possibilities that it's hard to say which one is the best. And all them can be gamed.
- eru 10y ago> [...] then about having just two real candidates versus more (powerful) parties [...] You can have more than two candidates without more powerful parties. Proportional representation leads to parties, something like range voting can keep the primacy of candidates, but lets us escape from the two party system. http://rangevoting.org/ http://rangevoting.org/
- threeseed 10y agoYes. Everyone did. Because globalism is not going anywhere. Trump can't isolate the US without dramatic, negative consequences. Trade war with the China ? Economists predict a worldwide recession. Tariffs on Mexico to pay for the wall ? Good luck to US agriculture.
- hellogoodbyeeee 10y agoYou mean the same election where the majority of people voted for the pro-globalism candidate?
- YuriNiyazov 10y agoLike I said in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12934475 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12934475 the popular vote is irrelevant.
- hellogoodbyeeee 10y agoI'm not saying Donald Trump shouldn't be president as he clearly won the game. What I'm saying is that you can't claim the election was a "referendum" on anything because more people voted against him than for him.
- redditmigrant 10y agoIf you are assuming Clinton and Trump are proxies for and against globalization respectively, more people (aka popular vote) actually voted for continuing globalization.
- YuriNiyazov 10y agoLike I said in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12934475 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12934475 the popular vote is irrelevant.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- cloakandswagger 10y agoInteresting that people keep rolling out this tired meme when she only won by, what, 200k votes? Your argument isn't very powerful when the margins are so tiny; you're arguing for a technicality.
- krisdol 10y agoClinton also stood against TPP.
- jessaustin 10y agoShe was against it, after she was for it. No one believed her, especially since Terry McAuliffe let the cat out of the bag. [EDIT:] I'm surprised the DNC downvoted this, since McAuliffe is yet another plausible person to blame while diverting attention from their terrible and misguided primary-fixing.
- twblalock 10y ago> EDIT: I'm amazed to see all other comments so far are anti-trade. A lot of the people who frequent this site are against the TPP because of its copyright and intellectual property provisions.
- godelski 10y agoHonestly me too. I'd rather us dictate trade in the Pacific than let China set the terms. That's really what this is about. Globalisation is happening regardless of whether people want it or not. It is all about who sets the terms though.
- MrMullen 10y agoChina is not part of TPP.
- vermontdevil 10y agoThe other poster meant that China can make deals with these countries that were originally on the TTP list. And that their deal could lock us out etc.
- milesskorpen 10y agoGlobalization is not inevitable nor irreversible. Pre-WWI the world was globalizing rapidly, but with WWI, the Great Depression/inter-war era, etc. it suffered massive setbacks. They were not pleasant setbacks for pretty much anyone involved.
- Brakenshire 10y agoTPP is designed to form a high-standards trade bloc against Chinese influence. That is its entire purpose.
- godelski 10y agoYeah, I get that. It is us making the deal. I can get not liking specifically TPP because of some provisions. But I didn't read through it closely enough to decide if I like that specific plan or not. But trading in the Pacific and setting the rules I do like.
- Amezarak 10y agoI'm ambivalent about free trade in general, and I tend to agree with the issues people have with TPP in particular, but I did want to address this sentiment: > Globalisation is happening regardless of whether people want it or not. Why? Globalization is a product of human behavior and human choices. Neither sunspots, cosmic rays, hurricanes, or earthquakes make globalization happen. It seems absurd, to me, to pretend that globalization is this Force beyond our control, that we just have to adapt or die. That isn't so. Globalization has gone on in the world because we, including and especially the United States of America, made it happen. The governing and business elite has chosen time and again to pursue globalization policies because it seemed like the right thing to do economically and often because it benefited them. We can choose to enact different policies and go in a different direction any time we want, and even pro-free trade economists like Krugman concede that the consequences will not be particularly dire (see his Brexit commentary.)
- namlem 10y agoGlobalism is good overall, yes, but it is very bad for certain subgroups. Everyone else has been benefiting at the expense of blue collar workers in developed countries.
- gumaflux 10y agoSomeone loose their job because there's a change in global economic structures. Another group of people lose their business of selling ice for house hold refrigeration. The problem is not globalisation or change, its the idea and related political deception that somehow if there are protectionist barriers the emergence of new suppliers, products, new skills, new ideas will go away. This is but one of several of similar distorted perceptions of reality that underpins the faulted democratic systems. If Society and government should facilitate something it's increased adaptability and acceptance for change, rather than selling the fraud that they can take it away.
- braveo 10y agoNo one was paying these people any mind, that's why Hillary lost. It doesn't matter if those particular jobs aren't coming back, this is something that people do not get. Guess which region of the country both the republics and democrats will be catering too for the next 4 to 8 years? Exactly. They got what they wanted, which is to be listened to. Stop putting this down as them simply being yokels who don't know any better.
- chillacy 10y agoI don't think the parent was calling them yokels who don't know any better. Rather hinting at the idea that every piece of government policy helps one group and hurts another. Globalization clearly hurts manufacturing in america, but it helps some of our export industries. It's not entirely zero-sum, but looking at the stock market these past few days (decrease in tech, increase in manufacturing banking and energy) implies that we've picked some new favorite industries. Personally I don't think government should aim to handout success to those who vote for them, but democracy seems to encourage that. I think ideally the people who work hardest should reap the most success. Reality of course isn't fair, so the government is there to even the playing field.
- MrMullen 10y agoI don't get it either. Free Trade has improved the lives of billions of people. It helps prevent wars and binds people and countries together. I just don't get the Hacker News Hate on Free Trade.
- theandrewbailey 10y agoAll these trade deals have onerous (read: harsher) copyright and intellectual property terms.
- losteric 10y agoI support free trade, but I am strongly opposed to TPP. In the past 10 years we've seen many attempts at faux-free-trade agreements... corrupting deals negotiated in secrecy, intentionally hidden from pubic checks / balances, supporting big corporate interests and oligopolies. That is not free trade. When it comes to TPP in particular, I am radically opposed to their proposed IP laws. EFF has a short write up on how TPP undermines with digital IP: https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
- vacri 10y agoAs an Australian, I loathe the TPP, negotiated in secret, where US IP laws can invade our own; pharma companies can jack up the prices on medication; and foreign companies that don't even have a presence here can sue our government and hold them to ransom. Most importantly, it's not a "free trade deal". It's just a "trade deal". Australia's trade deals in the past with the US have done things like removed tariffs for all US goods coming here, but not removed tariffs the other way around. We're definitely the little brother in this relationship.
- georgemcbay 10y agoI can't speak for HN posters in general, but a lot of people I know are pretty positive on globalization and open trade as a concept, but against these specific treaties because of the staggering amount of power they put into the hands of giant corporations.
- mahyarm 10y agoThese agreements usually go far further than removing tariff, business establishment and labour barriers.
- venomsnake 10y agoTrade is a tool. It should be used to further the national interests of the USA. Last election hinted that there is more to the USA than Wall Street, Silicon Valley and Hollywood.
- vlan0 10y agoI do not think it's that black and white. While it can be good, that does not make it inherently so. Jamacia is a good example[1]. [1]http://www.lifeanddebt.org/ http://www.lifeanddebt.org/
- threeseed 10y agoIt is amazing to witness. Especially since free and open trade is unquestionably responsible for so much economic growth. It is especially important for countries like the US who were always going to need to move higher up the value stack as they had to complete with cheaper overseas labour. The US is very much going the way of the UK. Slowly but surely moving towards irrelevancy.
- pdx 10y ago> Globalism is good for people overall Globalism may indeed be good for 3rd world countries, as their wages and the wages of 1st world countries will tend to converge. This is obviously not good for 1st world workers, who still have 1st world house payments, taxes, etc. An argument could be made that the 3rd world countries also suffer, as they end up being dictated to by the much stronger 1st world countries, and give up much of their sovereignty. 1st world countries also give up some sovereignty, which doesn't sit well with the general populous, as the beneficiaries of that loss of sovereignty are the multinational corporations, not the man on the street.
- Jack000 10y agoprotectionist policies might work if there is only one 1st world country and one 3rd world country, but America's share of world gdp is shrinking rapidly and an attempt to preserve their lead via protectionism is likely to backfire as they isolate themselves from the world economy.
- mixedCase 10y agoAs someone from a third world country that was entertaining a similar trade deal with the US, I certainly wanted to take no part on the humongous shit show that is the US patent system, which was part of the deal.
- eru 10y agoGlobalism doesn't lower 1st world wages. (And people certainly benefit from cheaper fridges---but those consumer benefits are diffused amongst the population, and have no clear champion.)
- nickff 10y agoI am sad to say that it seems many countries have gone in the same direction as the United States; the European Union recently rejected a free-ish trade agreement with Canada.
- indy 10y agoThe CETA free trade deal was (eventually) signed (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/30/eu-canada-sign-ceta-free-trade-deal-trudeau-juncker https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/30/eu-canada-s...)
- ant6n 10y agoIt was blocked by the provincial parlaiment of Wallonia, but they relented after 2 weeks or so. Most EU citizens didn't get a vote on it.
- nickff 10y agoThanks for the update, I was not aware of this development.
- homulilly 10y agoIf corporate america and the government had been less greedy and not insisted in rolling in corporate sovereignty and absurdly broken copyright and patent laws into free trade deals and considered providing some sort of relief to people negatively affected in the short term we wouldn't be having this backlash.
- AtheistOfFail 10y agoBut that's communism... and free market.... /s
- fucking_tragedy 10y ago> Globalism is good for people overall Who is it good for and how?
- losteric 10y agoIn theory, there are couple benefits: * Cheaper products for everyone * Competition drives innovation * Lower risk of large-scale wars * Ship high-pollution industries overseas * Improved price stability In practice, it falls apart because... - US has a poor social safety net. Low-income workers often end up jobless or in even lower skilled jobs - Globalism builds bigger corporations, which actively suppress competition - Big direct wars are replaced with constantly simmering proxy wars - We can't control environmental degradation in other countries
- eru 10y agoPeople who can buy cheaper fridges. People who can sell cheaper fridges.
- fucking_tragedy 10y agoHow can people buy cheaper fridges when they're no longer employed because it is cheaper to employ someone to do their jobs where safety, benefits and human rights don't exist?
- eru 10y agoUnemployment doesn't work that way. Otherwise, eg Singapore would have lots and lots of unemployment. Enough aggregate demand and a flexible labour market lead to low unemployment. (And on the flip side, a shortfall of aggregate demand can lead to recession and high unemployment.) Central banks can with their fiat currencies these days can always print enough money (eg quantitative easing) to prop up aggregate demand, if they choose so.
- thisisdallas 10y agoGlobalism is nothing more than the rich elite gaining control over more peasants. Sure, it's good for some of us.
- vacri 10y agoWithout globalism, you wouldn't have the internet as it is today, cheap computers, and smartphones wouldn't exist. High-tech depends on cheap asian manufacturing for its parts. Social media would be relatively negligible due to lack of network effects, and the 'peasants' love social media.
- Miner49er 10y agoThis isn't just free trade, and many people were against the TPP a few months ago. It was such an unpopular position to support it that Clinton changed her position on it. If you've been following this issue it shouldn't really come as a surprise that most people are against it, at least on HN.
- oh_sigh 10y agoIf every Chinese person committed suicide, it would be good for the world overall, because we would have so much less pollution.
- ChemicalWarfare 10y ago>> Globalism is good for people overall... It's good for "some" people. There also has to be a level playing field, some of the "players" have been caught cheating (currency manipulation for example - excellent analysis here http://www.epi.org/publication/trans-pacific-partnership-currency-manipulation-trade-and-jobs/ http://www.epi.org/publication/trans-pacific-partnership-cur...), some (like Japanese automotive "politics") are openly hostile without any repercussions.
- wmeredith 10y agoGlobalism is good for people overall, but not for the people at the top of the pile right NOW. Which is the US.