3 ms·

Disagree completely. I grew up in pretty "elite", mostly left-wing circles, who were heavily pro-globalization. The reason in a nutshell is "freedom". When you

Disagree completely. I grew up in pretty "elite", mostly left-wing circles, who were heavily pro-globalization. The reason in a nutshell is "freedom". When your friends growing up come from all over the world, and you understand that with anti-migrant policies, you wouldn't have ever met any of them, you'll be pro-freedom of movement. If you grew up in Alabama, and still live close to where you were born, you won't be. Maybe none of this is in the interest of factory workers, but that's not what the left is about anymore, and it's not the left's fault either. The world moved on. You will never get the "old left" back. Weakening the influence of corporations will still be popular on the left, but reversing globalization and freedom of movement will hopefully never be a left-wing position again. The factory-worker type who complains that his job moved to China, while he only buys the cheapest Chinese crap at Walmart, is not the future of the left.

rdtsc 10y ago
> The factory-worker type who complains that his job moved to China, while he only buys the cheapest Chinese crap at Walmart, is not the future of the left. What about the poor Mexican farmer who couldn't make a profit because NAFTA stripped away tariffs of import and he now has little chance except to pay a smuggler to take him up north so he can wash toilets or pick cotton away from his family. Is he the future of the left. > I grew up in pretty "elite", mostly left-wing circles, who were heavily pro-globalization. I think it is fair to say that "elite" left-wing circles are probably also not the future of the left either. > The reason in a nutshell is "freedom". When were elite's freedom ever restricted? Even in the most restrictive dictatorships elites can fly and spend the weekend in New York shopping. > you'll be pro-freedom of movement. That's exactly what the left has been fighting for. The PR twisting of the concept of "freedom". Elites and corporations always talk "but don't you want to be friends with everyone and hold hands and trade". What they mean is they want to be able to move without restriction and tariffs and exploit labor or resources in any country they want. The poor and disenfranchised are precisely even more restricted in the new "globalization". The more companies and elites more around, the more inequality they create and the more restriction, passport controls, visas and the poor get.
- concinds 10y ago
  > What about the poor Mexican farmer who couldn't make a profit because NAFTA stripped away tariffs of import and he now has little chance except to pay a smuggler to take him up north so he can wash toilets or pick cotton away from his family. Is he the future of the left. That's what welfare and unions are for. Free trade deals are, overall, better for everybody. The solution is education and retraining, not protectionism. You can see this in South-East Asia, where various countries progressively went from agriculture, to low-tech manufacturing, to high tech, over a few decades. Manufacturing jobs won't come back. Making labor more expensive will just make automation come quicker. Furthermore, restricting trade will just hurt the US, from a game theory standpoint, since other countries will just compensate by trading more. > What they mean is they want to be able to move without restriction and tariffs and exploit labor or resources in any country they want. Globalization doesn't mean letting companies evade taxes. That's a problem that precisely can't be solved individually, and has to be solved on a global level. It can be solved, and is being solved, worldwide. > When were elite's freedom ever restricted? Even in the most restrictive dictatorships elites can fly and spend the weekend in New York shopping. That's precisely why the elites are pro-freedom of movement. They couldn't imagine life without it.
  - remarkEon 10y ago
    I'm having a difficult time squaring your comments here in this line with your comment elsewhere on the thread about Taleb's ideas of anti-fragility and complex systems. Are you making a normative argument about how these "well designed, functional governments" should behave? Because if you are I'm having a hard time parsing how these governments behaving this way would be sufficiently different from how we got here (manifested by Trump, Brexit, FN, AfD) which seems to have exposed the world to some pretty serious systemic risk. Forgive me if I sound obtuse. > Globalization doesn't mean letting companies evade taxes. That's a problem that precisely can't be solved individually, and has to be solved on a global level. It can be solved, and is being solved, worldwide. I don't see this as being true at all, and it seem at odds with your earlier point about things "that just can't effectively be solved by bloated entities." There's elements of what you are saying that I agree with (anti-fragility, industrial inertia leading to stagnant workforces, the importance of retraining/education), but on the whole it seems a little one-foot-in-one-foot-out (which may have been intentional, if you're making a subtle point about hedging strategies.) Again, apologies if I sound obtuse.

rdtsc 10y ago

> The factory-worker type who complains that his job moved to China, while he only buys the cheapest Chinese crap at Walmart, is not the future of the left. What about the poor Mexican farmer who couldn't make a profit because NAFTA stripped away tariffs of import and he now has little chance except to pay a smuggler to take him up north so he can wash toilets or pick cotton away from his family. Is he the future of the left. > I grew up in pretty "elite", mostly left-wing circles, who were heavily pro-globalization. I think it is fair to say that "elite" left-wing circles are probably also not the future of the left either. > The reason in a nutshell is "freedom". When were elite's freedom ever restricted? Even in the most restrictive dictatorships elites can fly and spend the weekend in New York shopping. > you'll be pro-freedom of movement. That's exactly what the left has been fighting for. The PR twisting of the concept of "freedom". Elites and corporations always talk "but don't you want to be friends with everyone and hold hands and trade". What they mean is they want to be able to move without restriction and tariffs and exploit labor or resources in any country they want. The poor and disenfranchised are precisely even more restricted in the new "globalization". The more companies and elites more around, the more inequality they create and the more restriction, passport controls, visas and the poor get.

concinds 10y ago
> What about the poor Mexican farmer who couldn't make a profit because NAFTA stripped away tariffs of import and he now has little chance except to pay a smuggler to take him up north so he can wash toilets or pick cotton away from his family. Is he the future of the left. That's what welfare and unions are for. Free trade deals are, overall, better for everybody. The solution is education and retraining, not protectionism. You can see this in South-East Asia, where various countries progressively went from agriculture, to low-tech manufacturing, to high tech, over a few decades. Manufacturing jobs won't come back. Making labor more expensive will just make automation come quicker. Furthermore, restricting trade will just hurt the US, from a game theory standpoint, since other countries will just compensate by trading more. > What they mean is they want to be able to move without restriction and tariffs and exploit labor or resources in any country they want. Globalization doesn't mean letting companies evade taxes. That's a problem that precisely can't be solved individually, and has to be solved on a global level. It can be solved, and is being solved, worldwide. > When were elite's freedom ever restricted? Even in the most restrictive dictatorships elites can fly and spend the weekend in New York shopping. That's precisely why the elites are pro-freedom of movement. They couldn't imagine life without it.
- remarkEon 10y ago
  I'm having a difficult time squaring your comments here in this line with your comment elsewhere on the thread about Taleb's ideas of anti-fragility and complex systems. Are you making a normative argument about how these "well designed, functional governments" should behave? Because if you are I'm having a hard time parsing how these governments behaving this way would be sufficiently different from how we got here (manifested by Trump, Brexit, FN, AfD) which seems to have exposed the world to some pretty serious systemic risk. Forgive me if I sound obtuse. > Globalization doesn't mean letting companies evade taxes. That's a problem that precisely can't be solved individually, and has to be solved on a global level. It can be solved, and is being solved, worldwide. I don't see this as being true at all, and it seem at odds with your earlier point about things "that just can't effectively be solved by bloated entities." There's elements of what you are saying that I agree with (anti-fragility, industrial inertia leading to stagnant workforces, the importance of retraining/education), but on the whole it seems a little one-foot-in-one-foot-out (which may have been intentional, if you're making a subtle point about hedging strategies.) Again, apologies if I sound obtuse.