6 ms·

You points seem to me as a microcosm of the globalism vs nationalism debate. Nations specialize to a ridiculous degree and benefit (for a while) from free trad

by PKop 9y ago

You points seem to me as a microcosm of the globalism vs nationalism debate. Nations specialize to a ridiculous degree and benefit (for a while) from free trade, but then more and more jobs within wealthy nations get priced out of their country. So a country has less and less they can be competitive on the global stage, while more of their people become unemployed (drain on economy anyways as a result of welfare or UBI needs), if they intend to fully squeeze out all excess costs of goods. OR They hedge: Keep some markets local (national) and pay the price of not optimizing all jobs to global maximum efficiency, but retain opportunities for millions more of their citizens to be productively(?) employed. One point supporting this is you don't want to go years as a country without any experience working in certain markets that you abandoned long ago... if in the future labor costs will rise globally and keeping those jobs at home would become more viable anyways. (well.. automation might make this a moot point. that is probably the bigger issue.. but medium term "globalism" destroying jobs has merit) Also, hedging your bets as an economy and not putting your eggs in one (highly skilled) basket while depending completely on foreign countries for everything else (global supply chain issues, foreign policy, etc.) just seems prudent.

antisthenes 9y ago
This is just a case of policy and culture not keeping up with technology. Globalism happened so fast that the policies of countries who have been somewhat hurt by it have erred on the side of nationalistic rather than redistributive (which would have accounted for the higher marginal productivity of capital vs labor)
- PKop 9y ago
  Right but.. "redistributive" means what exactly? Free money for no work, or subsidized jobs? Know what I'm saying?... I personally resist jumping to redistribution with no work attached and would rather see some support of industry that will at least enable people to be gainfully employed. At the end of the day, you'd be getting money in the hands of those that otherwise couldn't earn it on their own, at the expense of those that can (higher costs for the domestic products produced), but with lesser socially destructive costs of perpetual dependence on welfare transfer payments, food stamps, UBI, etc. I actually don't see how we have erred on the side of nationalistic policy, yet.. though I see the demand for it now.

by PKop 9y ago

antisthenes 9y ago

This is just a case of policy and culture not keeping up with technology. Globalism happened so fast that the policies of countries who have been somewhat hurt by it have erred on the side of nationalistic rather than redistributive (which would have accounted for the higher marginal productivity of capital vs labor)

PKop 9y ago
Right but.. "redistributive" means what exactly? Free money for no work, or subsidized jobs? Know what I'm saying?... I personally resist jumping to redistribution with no work attached and would rather see some support of industry that will at least enable people to be gainfully employed. At the end of the day, you'd be getting money in the hands of those that otherwise couldn't earn it on their own, at the expense of those that can (higher costs for the domestic products produced), but with lesser socially destructive costs of perpetual dependence on welfare transfer payments, food stamps, UBI, etc. I actually don't see how we have erred on the side of nationalistic policy, yet.. though I see the demand for it now.