6 ms·

> I'm all for leveling the playing field No you're not, or you'd realize you're advocating a zero sum game It's the same as advocating for more women and mino

> I'm all for leveling the playing field No you're not, or you'd realize you're advocating a zero sum game It's the same as advocating for more women and minorities in industry; white men lose. Some other side will lose, because our economy doesn't operate on "even playing fields." It operates on "I have advantage and must protect it." The rich have an advantage of being rich and can sell some argument about knowing how to use their leverage to build companies to put people to work. USA had "The rest of the world is a smoking crater." after WW2 China has "No one else has a manufacturing base for electronics like we do." Advocating for a level playing field would be like universal healthcare, and not being forced trade away to the rich elite our creative endeavors for basic survival. You're peddling disingenuous political correctness that ignores physical reality.

jacquesm 9y ago
> It's the same as advocating for more women and minorities in industry; white men lose. With lines like that I'm sure you'll make lots of friends here. /s The world economy has profited handily from globalism at the same time that it has concentrated power and has made a very few people insanely rich. If we want to get to a more sustainable model for the longer term then we will have to forego short term profits and our hunt for the cheapest priced items. It's an open problem on whether or not capitalism combined with democracies and the power of money in politics is sustainable or not. I'd bet against it, but time will tell.
- 2f89u23 8y ago
  >> It's the same as advocating for more women and minorities in industry; white men lose. > With lines like that I'm sure you'll make lots of friends here. /s You stopped reading at that sentence apparently. I was using it as a descriptive parallel and it does happen that when we protect a new group, another loses. This is something economists themselves have pointed at throughout history, it's something James Madison wrote about when he wrote the Constitution (government should protect the rich from the poor; picking a class to favor, is how humans do if they think it'll win them favor.) Ya'll are memorizing economic models, but not the human stories that exist as an outcome of them. We've concentrated wealth like this before. It's not new. Economics are not physics. It's ephemeral nonsense that doesn't exist without human writing them down. Someone "pulled out" economics as a description of material trade, then decided they could use it to convince government to pass favorable rules. Advocating for a level playing field would be like universal healthcare, and not being forced trade away to the rich elite our creative endeavors for basic survival. You're peddling disingenuous political correctness that ignores physical reality.
forapurpose 9y ago
That's incorrect. Economics is not a zero sum game; in fact the better others do, the better off you are: You are much better off running a business, working, or just living unemployed in a neighborhood, city, country, or world full of wealthy, free people than you are where the others are poor and oppressed. And that's only if you are a completely selfish sociopath and care nothing for the welfare of others. If you are a healthy person who does care about others (which is a foundation of democracy - the belief that others should get a vote equal to your own), all the more reason for them to be free and prosperous too. U.S. foreign policy has long supported the freedom and prosperity of others, in large part for that reason. (Yes, there are many exceptions to that policy; I'm just talking about economics. EDIT: And yes, there are many exceptions to the economic policy too.)

jacquesm 9y ago

> It's the same as advocating for more women and minorities in industry; white men lose. With lines like that I'm sure you'll make lots of friends here. /s The world economy has profited handily from globalism at the same time that it has concentrated power and has made a very few people insanely rich. If we want to get to a more sustainable model for the longer term then we will have to forego short term profits and our hunt for the cheapest priced items. It's an open problem on whether or not capitalism combined with democracies and the power of money in politics is sustainable or not. I'd bet against it, but time will tell.

2f89u23 8y ago
>> It's the same as advocating for more women and minorities in industry; white men lose. > With lines like that I'm sure you'll make lots of friends here. /s You stopped reading at that sentence apparently. I was using it as a descriptive parallel and it does happen that when we protect a new group, another loses. This is something economists themselves have pointed at throughout history, it's something James Madison wrote about when he wrote the Constitution (government should protect the rich from the poor; picking a class to favor, is how humans do if they think it'll win them favor.) Ya'll are memorizing economic models, but not the human stories that exist as an outcome of them. We've concentrated wealth like this before. It's not new. Economics are not physics. It's ephemeral nonsense that doesn't exist without human writing them down. Someone "pulled out" economics as a description of material trade, then decided they could use it to convince government to pass favorable rules. Advocating for a level playing field would be like universal healthcare, and not being forced trade away to the rich elite our creative endeavors for basic survival. You're peddling disingenuous political correctness that ignores physical reality.

forapurpose 9y ago

That's incorrect. Economics is not a zero sum game; in fact the better others do, the better off you are: You are much better off running a business, working, or just living unemployed in a neighborhood, city, country, or world full of wealthy, free people than you are where the others are poor and oppressed. And that's only if you are a completely selfish sociopath and care nothing for the welfare of others. If you are a healthy person who does care about others (which is a foundation of democracy - the belief that others should get a vote equal to your own), all the more reason for them to be free and prosperous too. U.S. foreign policy has long supported the freedom and prosperity of others, in large part for that reason. (Yes, there are many exceptions to that policy; I'm just talking about economics. EDIT: And yes, there are many exceptions to the economic policy too.)