3 ms·

I think he means you're taking from one to give to another, which eventually results in the former being as worse off as the latter was, so the sum total of you

I think he means you're taking from one to give to another, which eventually results in the former being as worse off as the latter was, so the sum total of your "humanitarian effort" ultimately amounts to zero. But that's a guess.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
That's actually not true. The number of people living in absolute poverty (for various definitions of it) has gone down drastically. http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ourworldindata_world-poverty-since-1820-in-absolute-numbers.png http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ourworl... http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Images/84796-1179761045903/3798749-1330548119519/poverty_line_450x378.gif http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Images/84796-11797610... https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20130601_FBC698.png https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/... Really, the only issue seems to be a loss of status (not goods and services) by some rich white westerners. (Non-white westerners seem to have improved their situation by quite a bit also.)
- dukeluke 10y ago
  We haven't just lost status. We've lost leverage and loyalty too. Globalization has made the demand for lower class labor in the US drop to the point where the uneducated cannot do well anymore. In a balanced economy, there's a demand for everyone, yet in our outsourced service economy, only the highly educated do well. The opioid epidemic isn't here because of a loss of status.
- mistermann 10y ago
  > Really, the only issue seems to be a loss of status (not goods and services) by some rich white westerners. You're saying there have been literally no negative effects from globalization? That unemployment in the rust belt has had no effect on standard of living?

3 ms·

I think he means you're taking from one to give to another, which eventually results in the former being as worse off as the latter was, so the sum total of you

by nercht12 10y ago

yummyfajitas 10y ago
That's actually not true. The number of people living in absolute poverty (for various definitions of it) has gone down drastically. http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ourworldindata_world-poverty-since-1820-in-absolute-numbers.png http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ourworl... http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Images/84796-1179761045903/3798749-1330548119519/poverty_line_450x378.gif http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Images/84796-11797610... https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20130601_FBC698.png https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/... Really, the only issue seems to be a loss of status (not goods and services) by some rich white westerners. (Non-white westerners seem to have improved their situation by quite a bit also.)
- dukeluke 10y ago
  We haven't just lost status. We've lost leverage and loyalty too. Globalization has made the demand for lower class labor in the US drop to the point where the uneducated cannot do well anymore. In a balanced economy, there's a demand for everyone, yet in our outsourced service economy, only the highly educated do well. The opioid epidemic isn't here because of a loss of status.
- mistermann 10y ago
  > Really, the only issue seems to be a loss of status (not goods and services) by some rich white westerners. You're saying there have been literally no negative effects from globalization? That unemployment in the rust belt has had no effect on standard of living?