5 ms·

You bring up great points, and hit on the miscalculation and hypocrisy of the left. They seem to think that globalization is a universally good thing, and if yo

You bring up great points, and hit on the miscalculation and hypocrisy of the left. They seem to think that globalization is a universally good thing, and if you're against it then you are somehow disconnected, a racist, and a monster. This a common symptom not just isolated to globalization.

jbooth 10y ago
We've brought 3 billion people out of poverty in the last 30 years and haven't had a major-power war since WWII when we set up all these globalist institutitions. I'd say the record holds up pretty well.
- aylmao 10y ago
  Global cooperation/understanding and globalization are two very different things
- srj 10y ago
  You're arguing a collective good but many opponents of globalization are looking at it from an individual rather than collective point of view.
- nodesocket 10y ago
  Here is Peter Thiel talking about Globalization. I have not watch the entire video, but I've seen it mentioned for good points. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_3r49XXRw4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_3r49XXRw4
- wu-ikkyu 10y ago
  >We've brought 3 billion people out of poverty in the last 30 years and haven't had a major-power war since WWII when we set up all these globalist institutitions. What about the other 3 billion people left behind in poverty? That's more than what the total global population was when these "globalist institutions" were set up.
  - jbooth 10y ago
    We've gone from 85% of the global population in extreme poverty to 25%. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/declining-global-poverty-share-1820-2015 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/declining-global-poverty-...
    - wu-ikkyu 10y ago
      Percentages can be highly misleading because they abstract from the hard reality of absolute numbers. This is especially true when considering the exponential nature of population growth. The cited percentage change would be far more encouraging if population was constant, but it's not.
      - Shish2k 10y ago
        There's been a significant decrease in absolute numbers as well as percentage :) https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in-extre...
        wu-ikkyu 10y ago
        That graph is more informative. In terms of absolute numbers, extreme poverty has decreased by about 30% since 1820. I tried finding a similar graph/data set in regard to "regular" poverty (rather than "extreme") but couldn't find one. Does anyone have a source for the change in absolute numbers of regular poverty?
tomlock 10y ago
The post above says the reasons of not enough benefits is typically offered as an explanation - so using a broad brush to say the left accuses people of being disconnected and racist contradicts that point.
imglorp 10y ago
It's more specifically globalization of personal data warehousing and mining, for sale to advertisers and governments. Of course they're promoting adoption in any clothing they can drape it, and of course they're working on universal connectivity. Google came to the same conclusions and is doing the same.
jordigh 10y ago
Why is this about left or right or the hypocrisy of anyone? NAFTA was widely criticised by some Mexican leftists (might still be, haven't been following as closely) because it was viewed as being hugely beneficial to foreign interests and to wealthy elites, not to common Mexicans. The same people in favour of women's rights and equality were critical of globalisation. If this is about US politics, I find it so weird how each issue is exactly left or right and if you know someone's opinion about one issue you must immediately know their opinion about every other issue. How did that country become so polarised?
- jdoliner 10y ago
  > Why is this about left or right or the hypocrisy of anyone? Because we have eyes and brains and we use language to describe what's going on. There might be some instances of people who called themselves leftists who opposed something which we're now referring to as a leftist agenda. It's not a perfect black and white classification scheme but the deep link between leftism and globalization is painfully obvious to anyone with a brain. We're polarized because we disagree, deeply, trying to mix up the language used to describe that disagreement isn't going to make us less polarized.
  - throwaway729 10y ago
    But the point is that the tables flipped entirely. Go back to 1990's and you'll find GOP senators decrying Rage Against The Machine as communist radicals for their opposition to NAFTA. A big chunk of the GOP is still pro-free-markets. If core parts of what "left" and "right" mean are subject to re-definition every 4 years, maybe the polarized tail is wagging the dog.
    - edblarney 10y ago
      No - the tables have not flipped. There is 'global left/right' and 'local/national left/right' now. The 'global left' is exemplified by UN. The 'global right' exemplified by WTO. Often, the 'global' version of a movement can be in conflict with the 'local' version. This is seen clearly: 'global leftists' care about migrants - a lot - but immigration can be hurtful to the working class of the host nation. Mass importation unskilled labour = wage suppression, it's just an economic reality. 'Global lefits' might use negative terms such as 'lazy Americans' or whatever - which demonstrates the rift - 'working class' Americans are the 'traditional base' of leftists/labour organizations. This is most acutely seen in the UK, where the Labour vote has been split - most of UKIP (nationalist) votes came from Labour - who are now more of a 'globalist left' party. The Tories under May are a more 'traditional right wing' party, whereas the Liberals (i.e. Classical Liberal, which in America would be more akin to 'Libertarian') are kind for the 'pro globalist right wing' party - i.e. trade and business is the most important thing. 'Free Trade' sometimes breaks leftist ideals - because on one hand, it can have directly negative consequences for many workers. On the other hand - it means benefits for the working poor in other nations, and quite a lot of benefits for those who can hold onto their jobs in the host nation (lower prices for goods). Of course, the greatest rewards of globalism to the investing class. Also - it's usually centre-left activists who care about such issues as 'gentrification'. Well - 'globalization' is a kind of 'gentrification' on a massive scale. The loss of local customs, authentic culture etc. is acute in some places like 'Harlem' - but it's also becoming acute across entire nations - some wealthy, some not.
metaphorm 10y ago
you seem to be confusing neo-liberalism with "the left".
- aylmao 10y ago
  Which is both incredibly ironic, but kind of distressing to consider this confusion might be widespread. The left has historically always been about social justice, egalitarianism and opposition to social inequality, while Neoliberalism as far right as it gets.
Spooky23 10y ago
That's a flip -- NAFTA was supported by all of the establishment players except Labor. The republicans loved it because they got to get rid of unions in the north and protect against unionization drives in the South (where we previously outsourced to). The democrats liked it because their backers, particularly farmers saw it as a boon to agriculture. It was, and it fucked American, Canadian and Mexican working class people. Millions of Mexicans didn't decide to walk across the desert for kicks. They did that because NAFTA flooded their market with cheap subsidized corn that vaporized the rural agricultural economy in Mexico, just like it did in the US. Now the republicans have been eaten from the inside out by the true believers of their AstroTurf tea party movement. So they make a lot of noise about being against it now.

jbooth 10y ago

We've brought 3 billion people out of poverty in the last 30 years and haven't had a major-power war since WWII when we set up all these globalist institutitions. I'd say the record holds up pretty well.

aylmao 10y ago
Global cooperation/understanding and globalization are two very different things
srj 10y ago
You're arguing a collective good but many opponents of globalization are looking at it from an individual rather than collective point of view.
nodesocket 10y ago
Here is Peter Thiel talking about Globalization. I have not watch the entire video, but I've seen it mentioned for good points. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_3r49XXRw4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_3r49XXRw4
wu-ikkyu 10y ago
>We've brought 3 billion people out of poverty in the last 30 years and haven't had a major-power war since WWII when we set up all these globalist institutitions. What about the other 3 billion people left behind in poverty? That's more than what the total global population was when these "globalist institutions" were set up.
- jbooth 10y ago
  We've gone from 85% of the global population in extreme poverty to 25%. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/declining-global-poverty-share-1820-2015 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/declining-global-poverty-...
  - wu-ikkyu 10y ago
    Percentages can be highly misleading because they abstract from the hard reality of absolute numbers. This is especially true when considering the exponential nature of population growth. The cited percentage change would be far more encouraging if population was constant, but it's not.
    - Shish2k 10y ago
      There's been a significant decrease in absolute numbers as well as percentage :) https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in-extre...
      - wu-ikkyu 10y ago
        That graph is more informative. In terms of absolute numbers, extreme poverty has decreased by about 30% since 1820. I tried finding a similar graph/data set in regard to "regular" poverty (rather than "extreme") but couldn't find one. Does anyone have a source for the change in absolute numbers of regular poverty?

tomlock 10y ago

The post above says the reasons of not enough benefits is typically offered as an explanation - so using a broad brush to say the left accuses people of being disconnected and racist contradicts that point.

imglorp 10y ago

It's more specifically globalization of personal data warehousing and mining, for sale to advertisers and governments. Of course they're promoting adoption in any clothing they can drape it, and of course they're working on universal connectivity. Google came to the same conclusions and is doing the same.

jordigh 10y ago

Why is this about left or right or the hypocrisy of anyone? NAFTA was widely criticised by some Mexican leftists (might still be, haven't been following as closely) because it was viewed as being hugely beneficial to foreign interests and to wealthy elites, not to common Mexicans. The same people in favour of women's rights and equality were critical of globalisation. If this is about US politics, I find it so weird how each issue is exactly left or right and if you know someone's opinion about one issue you must immediately know their opinion about every other issue. How did that country become so polarised?

jdoliner 10y ago
> Why is this about left or right or the hypocrisy of anyone? Because we have eyes and brains and we use language to describe what's going on. There might be some instances of people who called themselves leftists who opposed something which we're now referring to as a leftist agenda. It's not a perfect black and white classification scheme but the deep link between leftism and globalization is painfully obvious to anyone with a brain. We're polarized because we disagree, deeply, trying to mix up the language used to describe that disagreement isn't going to make us less polarized.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  But the point is that the tables flipped entirely. Go back to 1990's and you'll find GOP senators decrying Rage Against The Machine as communist radicals for their opposition to NAFTA. A big chunk of the GOP is still pro-free-markets. If core parts of what "left" and "right" mean are subject to re-definition every 4 years, maybe the polarized tail is wagging the dog.
  - edblarney 10y ago
    No - the tables have not flipped. There is 'global left/right' and 'local/national left/right' now. The 'global left' is exemplified by UN. The 'global right' exemplified by WTO. Often, the 'global' version of a movement can be in conflict with the 'local' version. This is seen clearly: 'global leftists' care about migrants - a lot - but immigration can be hurtful to the working class of the host nation. Mass importation unskilled labour = wage suppression, it's just an economic reality. 'Global lefits' might use negative terms such as 'lazy Americans' or whatever - which demonstrates the rift - 'working class' Americans are the 'traditional base' of leftists/labour organizations. This is most acutely seen in the UK, where the Labour vote has been split - most of UKIP (nationalist) votes came from Labour - who are now more of a 'globalist left' party. The Tories under May are a more 'traditional right wing' party, whereas the Liberals (i.e. Classical Liberal, which in America would be more akin to 'Libertarian') are kind for the 'pro globalist right wing' party - i.e. trade and business is the most important thing. 'Free Trade' sometimes breaks leftist ideals - because on one hand, it can have directly negative consequences for many workers. On the other hand - it means benefits for the working poor in other nations, and quite a lot of benefits for those who can hold onto their jobs in the host nation (lower prices for goods). Of course, the greatest rewards of globalism to the investing class. Also - it's usually centre-left activists who care about such issues as 'gentrification'. Well - 'globalization' is a kind of 'gentrification' on a massive scale. The loss of local customs, authentic culture etc. is acute in some places like 'Harlem' - but it's also becoming acute across entire nations - some wealthy, some not.

metaphorm 10y ago

you seem to be confusing neo-liberalism with "the left".

aylmao 10y ago
Which is both incredibly ironic, but kind of distressing to consider this confusion might be widespread. The left has historically always been about social justice, egalitarianism and opposition to social inequality, while Neoliberalism as far right as it gets.

Spooky23 10y ago

That's a flip -- NAFTA was supported by all of the establishment players except Labor. The republicans loved it because they got to get rid of unions in the north and protect against unionization drives in the South (where we previously outsourced to). The democrats liked it because their backers, particularly farmers saw it as a boon to agriculture. It was, and it fucked American, Canadian and Mexican working class people. Millions of Mexicans didn't decide to walk across the desert for kicks. They did that because NAFTA flooded their market with cheap subsidized corn that vaporized the rural agricultural economy in Mexico, just like it did in the US. Now the republicans have been eaten from the inside out by the true believers of their AstroTurf tea party movement. So they make a lot of noise about being against it now.