4 ms·

The people against globalization aren't the poor making $30k/year. It's the middle-class making $80k-$100k/year doing routine work. Globalization does disprop

The people against globalization aren't the poor making $30k/year. It's the middle-class making $80k-$100k/year doing routine work. Globalization does disproportionately affects the poor the most, but the poor still end up voting for globalist neoliberal Democrats because they offer social services that solve much of the economic disparity problem that globalization creates, such as food stamps, universal health care, college loans, subsidized housing, and public transportation. Meanwhile, the middle-class that actually votes against globalization completely ignores the fact that government offers these social services. Ultimately globalization is a must, as it just increases efficiency and cuts prices. Ain't no one going to pay $100 for a commodity shirt you buy at Wal-Mart. And I'm OK with society where a 1% exists. The 1% is what causes skyscrapers and high art to happen. You don't want a society where everyone is equal. It's the differences that makes us great, and in fact may be the central meaning of life. Why would anyone want to be the same as everyone else? You become unnecessary if you're the same bland chunk of ordinary matter as everyone else.

grasshopperpurp 9y ago
There are degrees to things, and wealth inequality in the US is the worst it's been since right before the Great Depression. The idea that wealth inequality on this level is 'no big deal' is as stupid as it gets.
- PatentTroll 9y ago
  OP sets up the straw man of "anybody against any inequality must be advocating perfect equality" - which is hogwash. By OP's logic, feudalism is perfectly fine because it accentuates the differences between serfs and kings. Or hell, even slavery is Ok. What reasonable people have to start to appreciate is that everything isn't black and white, there are shades of gray and we can have meaningful disagreements about where the lines are drawn.
  - mozumder 9y ago
    So then define exactly what's good and bad, and let me know why. I get that inequality has gotten worse, but has it put us in a unstable situation? Has society collapsed? Are the roads destroyed? Is average lifespan now 0? We have more billionaires, but we also have 22 million more people with health care due to Obamacare now. What metrics are you using, and why are those metrics more important than other metrics people might use. Until you can clearly define that, we might as well say the anti-globalists are trying to turn everyone into ordinary chunks of common matter.
    - PatentTroll 9y ago
      Well I guess that's my point, let's have a conversation about inequality and discuss how much is too much. It's a reasonable thing to debate. Your post seemed to imply that railing against the 1% was inappropriate in some way
ashark 9y ago
> Ultimately globalization is a must, as it just increases efficiency and cuts prices. Unless I'm misreading the paper, one of its points is that lowering trade barriers has sharply diminishing returns-relative-to-harm, i.e. cutting a 10% tariff to 5% has a much better benefit-to-harm ratio than cutting a 5% tariff to 0%, and the effect is strong enough that at some point and by some accountings it may be more costly than it is enriching, to the state as a whole. So commitment to total destruction of trade barriers may not be the best policy, absent serious global-political-system shakeups (say, the dreaded one-world-government) to accompany it.
throwawaymanbot 9y ago
I would argue, based on chatting to some of the artists I have met over the years, that Artists will create Art regardless of wealthy patronage. Wealthy patronage is nice of course, but the will, the need and the want to create art is primary motivator for Artists. In the same way, that those who have an urge to start businesses, are not prevented to start business in countries with high taxation. Skyscrapers are a cool engineering feat. But, have you been to Europe? where there are not many skyscrapers, but amazing cities... I take issue however, with the term "globalist neoliberal Democrats" as if the Democrats are the only people who favor global trade? And if people pay taxes collectively, why should there not be returns? (Such as food stamps, etc) Otherwise, there wold be zero need for any tax over 5% for anybody, right?

grasshopperpurp 9y ago

There are degrees to things, and wealth inequality in the US is the worst it's been since right before the Great Depression. The idea that wealth inequality on this level is 'no big deal' is as stupid as it gets.

PatentTroll 9y ago
OP sets up the straw man of "anybody against any inequality must be advocating perfect equality" - which is hogwash. By OP's logic, feudalism is perfectly fine because it accentuates the differences between serfs and kings. Or hell, even slavery is Ok. What reasonable people have to start to appreciate is that everything isn't black and white, there are shades of gray and we can have meaningful disagreements about where the lines are drawn.
- mozumder 9y ago
  So then define exactly what's good and bad, and let me know why. I get that inequality has gotten worse, but has it put us in a unstable situation? Has society collapsed? Are the roads destroyed? Is average lifespan now 0? We have more billionaires, but we also have 22 million more people with health care due to Obamacare now. What metrics are you using, and why are those metrics more important than other metrics people might use. Until you can clearly define that, we might as well say the anti-globalists are trying to turn everyone into ordinary chunks of common matter.
  - PatentTroll 9y ago
    Well I guess that's my point, let's have a conversation about inequality and discuss how much is too much. It's a reasonable thing to debate. Your post seemed to imply that railing against the 1% was inappropriate in some way

ashark 9y ago

> Ultimately globalization is a must, as it just increases efficiency and cuts prices. Unless I'm misreading the paper, one of its points is that lowering trade barriers has sharply diminishing returns-relative-to-harm, i.e. cutting a 10% tariff to 5% has a much better benefit-to-harm ratio than cutting a 5% tariff to 0%, and the effect is strong enough that at some point and by some accountings it may be more costly than it is enriching, to the state as a whole. So commitment to total destruction of trade barriers may not be the best policy, absent serious global-political-system shakeups (say, the dreaded one-world-government) to accompany it.

throwawaymanbot 9y ago

I would argue, based on chatting to some of the artists I have met over the years, that Artists will create Art regardless of wealthy patronage. Wealthy patronage is nice of course, but the will, the need and the want to create art is primary motivator for Artists. In the same way, that those who have an urge to start businesses, are not prevented to start business in countries with high taxation. Skyscrapers are a cool engineering feat. But, have you been to Europe? where there are not many skyscrapers, but amazing cities... I take issue however, with the term "globalist neoliberal Democrats" as if the Democrats are the only people who favor global trade? And if people pay taxes collectively, why should there not be returns? (Such as food stamps, etc) Otherwise, there wold be zero need for any tax over 5% for anybody, right?