6 ms·

Globalization is Zero-sum

by known 10y ago

simonh 10y ago
Un-coerced free trade is never zero-sum. If I choose to buy goods from you, it's because I value the goods more than the money I pay, and you value the money I pay more than the goods. Both of us are better off after the transaction. Arguments about foreigners taking our jobs are obverblown. Take Britain as an example. Through tour historic trade networks, commonwealth links and EU membership we a major free trade powerhouse. So have all our jobs gone to China? No, our unemployment rate is near historic lows and our employment rate - the percentage of the population in work - is the highest it's ever been since it started being tracked in 1972. Compared to what life was like in my childhood in the 70s most Britains are fantastically better off. Our city centers and public facilities have been transformed. Foreign travel for leisure, once the preserve of the wealthy, is within reach of most of the population. My wife in Chinese, I've been going there since 2001 and that country is almost unrecognizably better off thanks to Globalization. I've seen both sides of the globalization equation up close. It's the most powerful force for good the world has even seen, flooding our markets with cheap consumer goods and low cost luxuries (I'd never seen a Mango in my childhood, now you can buy a box of them for £2 in the London markets in season) while lifting millions of people out of grinding, abject poverty.
- pikzen 10y ago
  >If I choose to buy goods from you, it's because I value the goods more than the money I pay, and you value the money I pay more than the goods. Uh... No? If I pay you, it's because you have something I need. I'm not giving you that money because I think it has less worth than what you're giving me in exchange, I'm doing it because that's the price. As far as UK unemployment goes, a huge part of that low percentage is due to zero hours jobs. Just because people are not registered as seeking a job doesn't mean they're better off. It's exact same scheme as Germany, and while unemployment goes down, the percentage of people with a job yet under the poverty line grows almost proportionally.
  - simonh 10y ago
    >Uh... No? If I pay you, it's because you have something I need. So you value it more. It has more utility to you. You are better off with it than with the money.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      Unless it is tied into some kind of mandatory tax, or government subsidy.
      - bdhess 10y ago
        I find utility in staying out of jail, so I pay my mandatory taxes.
        Chris2048 10y ago
        Exactly :-) If the government can "manufacture" utility like this, it isn't utility.
        simonh 10y ago
        Therefore government services have no value? Driven or been driven on any roads lately? Bought any goods transported on public infrastructure? Etc. I'm lost. I've no idea what you're really arguing at this point.
        Chris2048 10y ago
        I don't think I argued that. Perhaps that's why you're confused.
        bdhess 10y ago
        That's not at all true. In a democracy, "the government" is a reflection of the will of society, however imperfectly expressed. Paying taxes is as social obligation with known consequences for failure to comply (in this case, the threat of confinement). As a parallel example, perhaps I have a housemate who gets upset when he finds dirty dishes in the sink. So I take care to clean dishes when I use them-- perhaps not because I particularly care if there are dirty dishes in the sink, but because it upsets my housemate. Again, to prevent myself from accruing the negative utility that comes from failing to meet a social obligation.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > country is almost unrecognizably better off thanks to Globalization > is the highest it's ever been since it started being tracked in 1972 Can you prove that globalization is the cause of all the improvements? The fact you'd never seen a Mango before is probably due to transportation technology/infrastructure improvements, for example. "low cost luxuries" aren't necessarily sustainable so, and seem to depend on labor-cost disparities.
lawless123 10y ago
Explain how?

Globalization is Zero-sum

by known 10y ago

Globalization is Zero-sum

Un-coerced free trade is never zero-sum. If I choose to buy goods from you, it's because I value the goods more than the money I pay, and you value the money I pay more than the goods. Both of us are better off after the transaction. Arguments about foreigners taking our jobs are obverblown. Take Britain as an example. Through tour historic trade networks, commonwealth links and EU membership we a major free trade powerhouse. So have all our jobs gone to China? No, our unemployment rate is near historic lows and our employment rate - the percentage of the population in work - is the highest it's ever been since it started being tracked in 1972. Compared to what life was like in my childhood in the 70s most Britains are fantastically better off. Our city centers and public facilities have been transformed. Foreign travel for leisure, once the preserve of the wealthy, is within reach of most of the population. My wife in Chinese, I've been going there since 2001 and that country is almost unrecognizably better off thanks to Globalization. I've seen both sides of the globalization equation up close. It's the most powerful force for good the world has even seen, flooding our markets with cheap consumer goods and low cost luxuries (I'd never seen a Mango in my childhood, now you can buy a box of them for £2 in the London markets in season) while lifting millions of people out of grinding, abject poverty.

pikzen 10y ago
>If I choose to buy goods from you, it's because I value the goods more than the money I pay, and you value the money I pay more than the goods. Uh... No? If I pay you, it's because you have something I need. I'm not giving you that money because I think it has less worth than what you're giving me in exchange, I'm doing it because that's the price. As far as UK unemployment goes, a huge part of that low percentage is due to zero hours jobs. Just because people are not registered as seeking a job doesn't mean they're better off. It's exact same scheme as Germany, and while unemployment goes down, the percentage of people with a job yet under the poverty line grows almost proportionally.
- simonh 10y ago
  >Uh... No? If I pay you, it's because you have something I need. So you value it more. It has more utility to you. You are better off with it than with the money.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    Unless it is tied into some kind of mandatory tax, or government subsidy.
    - bdhess 10y ago
      I find utility in staying out of jail, so I pay my mandatory taxes.
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        Exactly :-) If the government can "manufacture" utility like this, it isn't utility.
        simonh 10y ago
        Therefore government services have no value? Driven or been driven on any roads lately? Bought any goods transported on public infrastructure? Etc. I'm lost. I've no idea what you're really arguing at this point.
        Chris2048 10y ago
        I don't think I argued that. Perhaps that's why you're confused.
        bdhess 10y ago
        That's not at all true. In a democracy, "the government" is a reflection of the will of society, however imperfectly expressed. Paying taxes is as social obligation with known consequences for failure to comply (in this case, the threat of confinement). As a parallel example, perhaps I have a housemate who gets upset when he finds dirty dishes in the sink. So I take care to clean dishes when I use them-- perhaps not because I particularly care if there are dirty dishes in the sink, but because it upsets my housemate. Again, to prevent myself from accruing the negative utility that comes from failing to meet a social obligation.
Chris2048 10y ago
> country is almost unrecognizably better off thanks to Globalization > is the highest it's ever been since it started being tracked in 1972 Can you prove that globalization is the cause of all the improvements? The fact you'd never seen a Mango before is probably due to transportation technology/infrastructure improvements, for example. "low cost luxuries" aren't necessarily sustainable so, and seem to depend on labor-cost disparities.

lawless123 10y ago

Explain how?