4 ms·

The assumption behind the parent is economic nationalism, which is a false model of economics. Economic development in other countries benefits the U.S. greatly

The assumption behind the parent is economic nationalism, which is a false model of economics. Economic development in other countries benefits the U.S. greatly; economics and trade are not zero-sum, but mutually beneficial. Would you rather sell (and buy) goods in a town of poor people, or in a town of wealthy ones? Would the U.S. rather sell and buy goods in a world of other wealthy countries, or in a world of poor ones? If China didn't develop economically, it wouldn't be huge market for U.S. goods today, and wouldn't produce so much that the U.S. needs. Nationalism also ignores two fundamental moral issues: First, it is an unequivocal moral good for people rise out of extreme poverty, as has happened in China (and elsewhere). Second, there is no moral difference between the welfare of a human being in China and one in the U.S. or any other country; there is no reason the American deserves to be more wealthy. Everyone should have opportunity and a fair shot to earn what they can; if you don't make more, should you get special welfare because of your nationality?

joejerryronnie 9y ago
This is all well and good in the global altruistic humanist sense, but if I just lost my job in Indiana because the company shuttered our plant and outsourced manufacturing to China, I'm voting for Trump. As they say, "All politics is local".
- nicoburns 9y ago
  Of course ironically it has been the US pushing globalism and free trade on the rest of the world (with similar impacts on industries elsewhere it seems).
  - caseysoftware 9y ago
    As noted in the article, the original analysis backed that up as a "good" option for the US and everyone else. With the knowledge that the original analysis is wrong, I wonder if we'll see actual policy changes more broadly than Trump's campaign rhetoric?
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    > the US pushing globalism and free trade on the rest of the world No, the rest of the world has been pushing it too, with exceptional results, and still follows that path with the U.S. being the odd country out. If this one study is correct, it only reflects on one aspect of a much larger issue. Trade has brought immense benefits to the world, lifting billions out of abject poverty; whatever it's drawbacks and imperfections, it's very hard to say it's anything but the greatest economic success in human history. Globalism is built on the foundation of universal human rights, probably the most important factor in the overall welfare of humans. If the people who happen to be on the other side of an arbitrary, invisible line don't have rights, then neither do you.
    - dcow 9y ago
      So economic prosperity is equivalent to universal human rights? If we raise the world's average income by enslaving the bottom 5% of the population in a sovereignty that does not defend human rights am I supposed to look the other way? Sorry if this is hyperbole but I think you get my point.
      - forapurpose 9y ago
        Certain economic needs - food, shelter, health care, education, etc. - are human rights. I'm not sure what else you are referring to. Who said it's ok to enslave people? Or that the economic rights were the only ones that mattered? > am I supposed to look the other way? Absolutely not; it's wrong to look the other way. I shouldn't either.
        dcow 9y ago
        Perhaps you are missing my point. Your argument is that globalization is universally good for the world because it equalizes global economy. I am suggesting that's only true if the world also shares the same understanding of fundamental human rights. If we equalize global economy by trading with or including a country that does not treat workers humanely, how do we resolve that?
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > but if I just lost my job in Indiana because the company shuttered our plant and outsourced manufacturing to China, I'm voting for Trump Americans have gone through decades of ups and downs without turning to hateful nationalism and while supporting free trade, as well as 'humanism' (in terms of democracy, liberty, and opportunity) for all. The nationalists want to appear inevitable, but they are not. If there's no humanism for others then there's none for you either; if human rights aren't universal, then you don't have any either. Being unemployed and relatively powerless, people might appreciate a little more humanism. EDIT: And according to this thread, the low-income voters voted for Clinton anyway: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17004385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17004385 > This is all well and good in global altruistic humanist sense In the local economic sense, in fact. If trade is harmed, then your chance of getting another job is reduced and the cost of things that you need will go up. Most of what you buy is produced outside the U.S. > if I just lost my job in Indiana because the company shuttered our plant and outsourced manufacturing to China, I'm voting for Trump That takes at face value Trump's claim to represent such groups' interests. If you are a minority, you probably aren't voting for Trump; if you are a woman, it's also unlikely you see him as protecting your interests, Also, Trump will take away you and your family's health insurance; his spending policies will remove other government benefits and investments you receive (including higher education for your kids); his economic and trade policies may harm economic output, reducing your chance to get another job; his inflationary policies may eat away your savings; his pro-Wall Street policies may make you a victim of the financial system ... much of his appeal is not to the economic interests of factory workers, but to ethnic nationalism, and other issues. My point is not to debate about Trump's policies, but to say: Let's not take politicians' claims at face value and just repeat them.
  - joejerryronnie 9y ago
    You are not wrong but you're also asking people who feel their immediate future is in jeopardy to look beyond the woes of their small town and consider the larger, interconnected global economy. I'm a Silicon Valley tech worker so my reality is far different than this scenario, but we've got to find a way to frame the conversation in terms that will engage the other half of the country who do feel this way. Who knows, we might even find out that they have some good points.
mattnewton 9y ago
The problem is when I don’t get to sell into the new wealthy neighborhood without partnering with the Chinese government, which is the case today.
rdlecler1 9y ago
Elected officials have a fiduciary duty to citizens of the US, not citizens of other countries. Think China cares about US citizens beyond what it can give China? No.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > Elected officials have a fiduciary duty to citizens of the US, not citizens of other countries. This argument assumes the nationalist position, rather than addressing its (immense) flaws (a proven track record of promoting hatred, of leading to war and disaster, and of being wrong - peaceful international cooperation in the West has predominated for generations, with the result being the most successful boom of political and economic welfare in the history of humanity). A belief in the idea of liberty, rather than ethnicity, is the foundation of the United States. 'All men are created equal' was why the U.S. was formed; not 'All Americans' or 'All white people'. Human rights must be universal; if the other guy doesn't have them then neither do you. Universal human rights has been a foundation of U.S. foreign policy for generations, with great effect: The world is now filled with democratic, free countries, like never before. People in the U.S. have always cared about the freedom of others. The nationalist position of the current administration is an extreme exception, not the rule. It's also is in the U.S.'s self-interest: Free democracies are peaceful, and they are prosperous, which makes them good trading partners. All the wealthiest countries in the world are democracies. Also, democracies rarely if ever start international wars (the U.S. having become the prominent exception during this century). > Think China cares about US citizens beyond what it can give China? I don't know who "China" is. Do people in China care about the welfare of people besides themselves? Of course. Most human beings are not sociopaths, despite the nationalist assumption that they are - really the desire, because it promotes more nationalism.. Does Xi Jinping? As the dictatorial, oppressive ruler of over a billion people, he seems mostly interested in his own power and not their welfare, or anyone else's.
zeth___ 9y ago
>should you get special welfare because of your nationality? Given that it's my country: yes. Why else spend so much money on bombs?
sbov 9y ago
> Second, there is no moral difference between the welfare of a human being in China and one in the U.S. or any other country; there is no reason the American deserves to be more wealthy. Lol. If even a tiny percentage humans followed this morality globalism wouldn't be necessary in the first place.
mistermann 9y ago
Most of this seems relative to your own personal preference for moral codes, etc. In the West, we've generally settled on a set of morals that many people agree with (although it seems to be splintering now that the world is becoming far more complex), whereas in other countries they have their own set of generally accepted morals. Barring a dictate passed down from the creator of the world, morals are a man made construct, a matter of many opinions typically subject to local culture, so any argument fundamentally based on morals seems flawed and can lead to conclusions like "all economic development anywhere in the world is beneficial to all other parts of the world".
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > your own personal preference for moral codes No, these are universal human rights. Dictators who deny their people self-determination have long claimed 'we're different', but wherever people have a choice, they've chosen these rights. It's true across cultures: The only places in China where people can decide their own rules have chosen these rights, Taiwan and Hong Kong (and don't forget mainland Chinese the last time they had a chance at it, in Tienanmen Square). Japan, South Korea, almost every country in N. and S. America, Europe and the U.S., and on and on. It's a bit of a catch-22 for the dictators: If people are so happy with your rules, why not take a vote?
  - mistermann 8y ago
    > No, these are universal human rights. A group of people, mostly men, got together and wrote some things down and declared that they are "universal" "rights". > It's true across cultures Except where it's not. > The only places in China where people can decide their own rules have chosen these rights Are you implying Chinese citizens share the same rights as everyone else? > If people are so happy with your rules, why not take a vote? This sounds like you're under the impression the outcome will be unanimous support. After all, these laws are universal, right? To me this looks like another simple case of an advocate of some cause once again simply declaring themselves Correct, "the time for discussion is over". It's a fashionable and quite effective persuasion technique so you can hardly blame people. On another note, I'd love for you to provide your definition of the word "nationalism". If you're so confident it is correct (I presume) then why not just explicitly state it? ;)

joejerryronnie 9y ago

This is all well and good in the global altruistic humanist sense, but if I just lost my job in Indiana because the company shuttered our plant and outsourced manufacturing to China, I'm voting for Trump. As they say, "All politics is local".

nicoburns 9y ago
Of course ironically it has been the US pushing globalism and free trade on the rest of the world (with similar impacts on industries elsewhere it seems).
- caseysoftware 9y ago
  As noted in the article, the original analysis backed that up as a "good" option for the US and everyone else. With the knowledge that the original analysis is wrong, I wonder if we'll see actual policy changes more broadly than Trump's campaign rhetoric?
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > the US pushing globalism and free trade on the rest of the world No, the rest of the world has been pushing it too, with exceptional results, and still follows that path with the U.S. being the odd country out. If this one study is correct, it only reflects on one aspect of a much larger issue. Trade has brought immense benefits to the world, lifting billions out of abject poverty; whatever it's drawbacks and imperfections, it's very hard to say it's anything but the greatest economic success in human history. Globalism is built on the foundation of universal human rights, probably the most important factor in the overall welfare of humans. If the people who happen to be on the other side of an arbitrary, invisible line don't have rights, then neither do you.
  - dcow 9y ago
    So economic prosperity is equivalent to universal human rights? If we raise the world's average income by enslaving the bottom 5% of the population in a sovereignty that does not defend human rights am I supposed to look the other way? Sorry if this is hyperbole but I think you get my point.
    - forapurpose 9y ago
      Certain economic needs - food, shelter, health care, education, etc. - are human rights. I'm not sure what else you are referring to. Who said it's ok to enslave people? Or that the economic rights were the only ones that mattered? > am I supposed to look the other way? Absolutely not; it's wrong to look the other way. I shouldn't either.
      - dcow 9y ago
        Perhaps you are missing my point. Your argument is that globalization is universally good for the world because it equalizes global economy. I am suggesting that's only true if the world also shares the same understanding of fundamental human rights. If we equalize global economy by trading with or including a country that does not treat workers humanely, how do we resolve that?
forapurpose 9y ago
> but if I just lost my job in Indiana because the company shuttered our plant and outsourced manufacturing to China, I'm voting for Trump Americans have gone through decades of ups and downs without turning to hateful nationalism and while supporting free trade, as well as 'humanism' (in terms of democracy, liberty, and opportunity) for all. The nationalists want to appear inevitable, but they are not. If there's no humanism for others then there's none for you either; if human rights aren't universal, then you don't have any either. Being unemployed and relatively powerless, people might appreciate a little more humanism. EDIT: And according to this thread, the low-income voters voted for Clinton anyway: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17004385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17004385 > This is all well and good in global altruistic humanist sense In the local economic sense, in fact. If trade is harmed, then your chance of getting another job is reduced and the cost of things that you need will go up. Most of what you buy is produced outside the U.S. > if I just lost my job in Indiana because the company shuttered our plant and outsourced manufacturing to China, I'm voting for Trump That takes at face value Trump's claim to represent such groups' interests. If you are a minority, you probably aren't voting for Trump; if you are a woman, it's also unlikely you see him as protecting your interests, Also, Trump will take away you and your family's health insurance; his spending policies will remove other government benefits and investments you receive (including higher education for your kids); his economic and trade policies may harm economic output, reducing your chance to get another job; his inflationary policies may eat away your savings; his pro-Wall Street policies may make you a victim of the financial system ... much of his appeal is not to the economic interests of factory workers, but to ethnic nationalism, and other issues. My point is not to debate about Trump's policies, but to say: Let's not take politicians' claims at face value and just repeat them.
- joejerryronnie 9y ago
  You are not wrong but you're also asking people who feel their immediate future is in jeopardy to look beyond the woes of their small town and consider the larger, interconnected global economy. I'm a Silicon Valley tech worker so my reality is far different than this scenario, but we've got to find a way to frame the conversation in terms that will engage the other half of the country who do feel this way. Who knows, we might even find out that they have some good points.

mattnewton 9y ago

The problem is when I don’t get to sell into the new wealthy neighborhood without partnering with the Chinese government, which is the case today.

rdlecler1 9y ago

Elected officials have a fiduciary duty to citizens of the US, not citizens of other countries. Think China cares about US citizens beyond what it can give China? No.

forapurpose 9y ago
> Elected officials have a fiduciary duty to citizens of the US, not citizens of other countries. This argument assumes the nationalist position, rather than addressing its (immense) flaws (a proven track record of promoting hatred, of leading to war and disaster, and of being wrong - peaceful international cooperation in the West has predominated for generations, with the result being the most successful boom of political and economic welfare in the history of humanity). A belief in the idea of liberty, rather than ethnicity, is the foundation of the United States. 'All men are created equal' was why the U.S. was formed; not 'All Americans' or 'All white people'. Human rights must be universal; if the other guy doesn't have them then neither do you. Universal human rights has been a foundation of U.S. foreign policy for generations, with great effect: The world is now filled with democratic, free countries, like never before. People in the U.S. have always cared about the freedom of others. The nationalist position of the current administration is an extreme exception, not the rule. It's also is in the U.S.'s self-interest: Free democracies are peaceful, and they are prosperous, which makes them good trading partners. All the wealthiest countries in the world are democracies. Also, democracies rarely if ever start international wars (the U.S. having become the prominent exception during this century). > Think China cares about US citizens beyond what it can give China? I don't know who "China" is. Do people in China care about the welfare of people besides themselves? Of course. Most human beings are not sociopaths, despite the nationalist assumption that they are - really the desire, because it promotes more nationalism.. Does Xi Jinping? As the dictatorial, oppressive ruler of over a billion people, he seems mostly interested in his own power and not their welfare, or anyone else's.

zeth___ 9y ago

>should you get special welfare because of your nationality? Given that it's my country: yes. Why else spend so much money on bombs?

sbov 9y ago

> Second, there is no moral difference between the welfare of a human being in China and one in the U.S. or any other country; there is no reason the American deserves to be more wealthy. Lol. If even a tiny percentage humans followed this morality globalism wouldn't be necessary in the first place.

mistermann 9y ago

Most of this seems relative to your own personal preference for moral codes, etc. In the West, we've generally settled on a set of morals that many people agree with (although it seems to be splintering now that the world is becoming far more complex), whereas in other countries they have their own set of generally accepted morals. Barring a dictate passed down from the creator of the world, morals are a man made construct, a matter of many opinions typically subject to local culture, so any argument fundamentally based on morals seems flawed and can lead to conclusions like "all economic development anywhere in the world is beneficial to all other parts of the world".

forapurpose 9y ago
> your own personal preference for moral codes No, these are universal human rights. Dictators who deny their people self-determination have long claimed 'we're different', but wherever people have a choice, they've chosen these rights. It's true across cultures: The only places in China where people can decide their own rules have chosen these rights, Taiwan and Hong Kong (and don't forget mainland Chinese the last time they had a chance at it, in Tienanmen Square). Japan, South Korea, almost every country in N. and S. America, Europe and the U.S., and on and on. It's a bit of a catch-22 for the dictators: If people are so happy with your rules, why not take a vote?
- mistermann 8y ago
  > No, these are universal human rights. A group of people, mostly men, got together and wrote some things down and declared that they are "universal" "rights". > It's true across cultures Except where it's not. > The only places in China where people can decide their own rules have chosen these rights Are you implying Chinese citizens share the same rights as everyone else? > If people are so happy with your rules, why not take a vote? This sounds like you're under the impression the outcome will be unanimous support. After all, these laws are universal, right? To me this looks like another simple case of an advocate of some cause once again simply declaring themselves Correct, "the time for discussion is over". It's a fashionable and quite effective persuasion technique so you can hardly blame people. On another note, I'd love for you to provide your definition of the word "nationalism". If you're so confident it is correct (I presume) then why not just explicitly state it? ;)