3 ms·

Yes, the main premise. Globalization has primarily benefited the poor, and to think otherwise shows a grave misunderstanding of history. International trade has

by c3534l 9y ago

Yes, the main premise. Globalization has primarily benefited the poor, and to think otherwise shows a grave misunderstanding of history. International trade has toppled Monarchies, dramatically improved the living conditions in Africa and led to the most prosperous eras in history. The fact that in the past few decades, relative inequality has increased in Western nations is certainly unfortunate, but if you think globalization is a recent development in economics, then you shouldn't be writing for a magazine called the Economist.

SapphireSun 9y ago
I'm unable to spend much time commenting atm, but what I will say is that unlike the Economist, you are the one editorializing. Factually, capitalism/globalization has benefited lower classes materially, but has stripped them of agency. While you are right globalization is not entirely new (e.g. mercantilism, the East India Company), what is new is private, multinational actors being able to choose which set of rules they can play by. That is genuinely new, at least at scale. Private actors making states compete against each other to lower their taxes and sue nations for enforcing health codes a la investor rights trade agreements. While trade is good, extractive trade is damaging. The American industrial midwest is a good example. Capitalists first moved jobs overseas, and then automated what was left. We still have strong manufacturing, but few people doing it. This level of inequality, lack of agency, and lack of hope is incredibly corrosive to democratic values. You can see it for yourself in the election of our leader, the grievance of the pepés, and the general ascension of the right. The fact that this kind of thing is taking place globally across the trilateral powers means there's something systemic at work, it's not a quirk of American circumstance.
- c3534l 9y ago
  > you are the one editorializing Of course I am, this is the comments to an article submitted to HackerNews. > Factually, capitalism/globalization has benefited lower classes materially So we're in agreement. > but has stripped them of agency Social mobility has gone up since 1700s and continued to go up, with little more than a few hiccups along the way. Regardless, whether or not globalization is good or bad is an opinion and one that does not belong in an article about a single specific study on tax avoidance / possible tax evasion. I'm not going to reply to the rest of what you said because of that same basic point. It's a complicated issue that tackles a lot of different areas of economics, history, and politics that doesn't have any real agreement with the experts that study those things. I certainly have no hope of doing the subject justice as a comment to an article. And that's precisely why that shouldn't be shoehorned into an article about taxes to begin with. You have no hope of defending general condemnation of globalization and piling on nonspecific blame on the "ultra rich." If a journalist has an opinion and they want to argue why they're right backed up by objective facts and research, I'd love to read that sort of thing. But precisely because I don't want to live in an echo chamber, I don't want to hear your opinion stated as fact without anything to back up.
  - barrkel 9y ago
    whether or not globalization is good or bad is an opinion You'll note that judging whether globalisation has helped capital more vs labour more is not an assertion of goodness or badness of globalisation, either way. Just like someone can say that cars make road accidents more likely (fact), without it being a judgement on whether cars are good or bad (opinion). I think you've been triggered and are reacting to something that wasn't written; you've over-read into the piece.
  - SapphireSun 9y ago
    You are living in a pre-11/9 mentality my friend. A few years ago, it was easy to think that material possessions were enough. The yawing chasms in the fabric of society are now baldly apparent. The old system is crashing. We need to acknowledge reality now and work as fast as possible to fix it after we figure out how.
xkjkls 9y ago
Are you really excusing The Economist, the bastion of neoliberalism that it is, of not being sufficiently in favor of globalization? Sure, globalization has lifted millions out of poverty, but it is also pretty uncontroversial to state that it also has disproportionately increased the wealth of the billionaire and millionaire class.
wpietri 9y ago
You believe you're contradicting them here: > Globalization has primarily benefited the poor But you aren't. It is simultaneously possible for globalization to have strongly benefited the poor and for "Globalisation [to have] disproportionately benefited the rich in part by rewarding capital more handsomely than labour." They quite regularly make the point that trade has broad benefits, and on net they're fans of globalization. But unlike you, they are willing to hold that opinion while simultaneously noting that not everything about it is perfect.

by c3534l 9y ago

SapphireSun 9y ago

I'm unable to spend much time commenting atm, but what I will say is that unlike the Economist, you are the one editorializing. Factually, capitalism/globalization has benefited lower classes materially, but has stripped them of agency. While you are right globalization is not entirely new (e.g. mercantilism, the East India Company), what is new is private, multinational actors being able to choose which set of rules they can play by. That is genuinely new, at least at scale. Private actors making states compete against each other to lower their taxes and sue nations for enforcing health codes a la investor rights trade agreements. While trade is good, extractive trade is damaging. The American industrial midwest is a good example. Capitalists first moved jobs overseas, and then automated what was left. We still have strong manufacturing, but few people doing it. This level of inequality, lack of agency, and lack of hope is incredibly corrosive to democratic values. You can see it for yourself in the election of our leader, the grievance of the pepés, and the general ascension of the right. The fact that this kind of thing is taking place globally across the trilateral powers means there's something systemic at work, it's not a quirk of American circumstance.

c3534l 9y ago
> you are the one editorializing Of course I am, this is the comments to an article submitted to HackerNews. > Factually, capitalism/globalization has benefited lower classes materially So we're in agreement. > but has stripped them of agency Social mobility has gone up since 1700s and continued to go up, with little more than a few hiccups along the way. Regardless, whether or not globalization is good or bad is an opinion and one that does not belong in an article about a single specific study on tax avoidance / possible tax evasion. I'm not going to reply to the rest of what you said because of that same basic point. It's a complicated issue that tackles a lot of different areas of economics, history, and politics that doesn't have any real agreement with the experts that study those things. I certainly have no hope of doing the subject justice as a comment to an article. And that's precisely why that shouldn't be shoehorned into an article about taxes to begin with. You have no hope of defending general condemnation of globalization and piling on nonspecific blame on the "ultra rich." If a journalist has an opinion and they want to argue why they're right backed up by objective facts and research, I'd love to read that sort of thing. But precisely because I don't want to live in an echo chamber, I don't want to hear your opinion stated as fact without anything to back up.
- barrkel 9y ago
  whether or not globalization is good or bad is an opinion You'll note that judging whether globalisation has helped capital more vs labour more is not an assertion of goodness or badness of globalisation, either way. Just like someone can say that cars make road accidents more likely (fact), without it being a judgement on whether cars are good or bad (opinion). I think you've been triggered and are reacting to something that wasn't written; you've over-read into the piece.
- SapphireSun 9y ago
  You are living in a pre-11/9 mentality my friend. A few years ago, it was easy to think that material possessions were enough. The yawing chasms in the fabric of society are now baldly apparent. The old system is crashing. We need to acknowledge reality now and work as fast as possible to fix it after we figure out how.

xkjkls 9y ago

Are you really excusing The Economist, the bastion of neoliberalism that it is, of not being sufficiently in favor of globalization? Sure, globalization has lifted millions out of poverty, but it is also pretty uncontroversial to state that it also has disproportionately increased the wealth of the billionaire and millionaire class.

wpietri 9y ago

You believe you're contradicting them here: > Globalization has primarily benefited the poor But you aren't. It is simultaneously possible for globalization to have strongly benefited the poor and for "Globalisation [to have] disproportionately benefited the rich in part by rewarding capital more handsomely than labour." They quite regularly make the point that trade has broad benefits, and on net they're fans of globalization. But unlike you, they are willing to hold that opinion while simultaneously noting that not everything about it is perfect.