4 ms·

So it's OK to fuck over a large portion of your own population because it's trickling down to a poor country? The issue is that nations have a duty to their ow

So it's OK to fuck over a large portion of your own population because it's trickling down to a poor country? The issue is that nations have a duty to their own citizens, good luck telling an entire generation that they need to make sacrifices for others while the rich keep getting richer.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
Hence the rise of populism over the last half decade. “Let then eat cake” isn’t a strategy.
tim333 7y ago
I'm not sure the rising inequality in the US is really a result of the poor countries getting richer. Lots of other developed countries have traded with the world with much less of that eg. Germany, Scandinavia. It's more a result of the kind of politics Fox News pushes.
- Mikeb85 7y ago
  Globalism was literally a concerted effort to off-shore blue collar work with the expectation that the population of richer countries would become more educated and work in information intensive jobs (also siphoning off value from said off-shored industries). Where it went somewhat awry is that computers and automation have meant that less jobs are actually required in those sectors that we envisioned people having, leaving a large portion of the population under-employed in low paying service jobs. Globalism was literally a concerted effort undertaken after WWII, this isn't some sort of Fox News level conspiracy theory. It's history, literally stuff in economics textbooks and easily verifiable. As for why Scandinavia and Germany have managed to keep inequality at bay, they've got very robust welfare states and strong labour unions.
  - tim333 7y ago
    By Fox News politics I mean opposition to stuff like the robust welfare states and strong labour unions you mention.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - ido 7y ago
    All European welfare states have been in the process of dismantling & privatising post Reagan/Tatcher (e.g. in Berlin the city sold most public housing estates to private investors decades ago). They haven't deteriorated as fast as the US and UK but the trend is clear.
- yomly 7y ago
  Right, and Germany is seeing a rise in populism too so maybe they're also facing similar macro trends... It's worth noting that both Scandinavia and Germany are far less economically libertarian than most Americans would palate too
  - Mikeb85 7y ago
    Well they're seeing a rise in immigration (which economically speaking has the same effect as offshoring) which is large enough to offset the equalising effects of the welfare state, and while I'm not super up to date on their politics, I'd guess the welfare state might also be weakening because of the need to support the influx of new immigrants. Also, crime rises/falls depending on economic outcomes for the lower segment of the population. If there's too many immigrants unable to find jobs or integrate, crime rises which can cause discontent.
    - aries1980 7y ago
      > Well they're seeing a rise in immigration (which economically speaking has the same effect as offshoring) Not really, because some or all of he income of these immigrants are taxed and spent domestically.
      - Mikeb85 7y ago
        Decreasing the cost of labour through immigration is the same. Most immigrants also send money back home. So yes it's the same effect even if the it's not quite the same amount.
        aries1980 7y ago
        But discounting the labour cost is not the only dimension. These immigrants are spending money domestically, increasing the domestic output, creating new market demands, paying rents, etc. I do understand your logic, but my argument is while offshore money is spent outside the borders, immigrants spend most of their income domestically and pay their taxes, which is a too big difference to put it into the same category.
plesiv 7y ago
I read OP's comment more as a neutral statement of a fact than as a justification for the globalization processes. I'd be willing to wager that none of the actors pushing these processes are minding either of these two inequality facts (inequality in developed countries rising, inequality is developing countries falling). These actors are driven by their incentives and the current system makes it good for them to further globalization - very much in the same way that it's good for them not need to be careful to be environmentally friendly. At least to me, "f*g over someone" would imply malicious intent - these economic agents are neither benevolent nor malicious - they simply don't care. In a slightly wider context, this is exactly why an AGI is considered dangerous.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  That's the Big Lie of economics - that this is just how it is, and people don't/shouldn't care. In fact mainstream neoliberal economic theory has always been about rationalising political actions that operate against the interests of most of the population. The origination and promotion of these economic myths is calculated, deliberate, and absolutely malicious in intent. The Chicago School didn't just happen - it was created, promoted, funded and nurtured as a dogmatic political movement opposed to Keynesianism. Individual actors may not care, but that's exactly the problem -they've been incentivised not to. Under a more humane system, they could just as easily be incentivised towards other actions.

toomuchtodo 7y ago

Hence the rise of populism over the last half decade. “Let then eat cake” isn’t a strategy.

tim333 7y ago

I'm not sure the rising inequality in the US is really a result of the poor countries getting richer. Lots of other developed countries have traded with the world with much less of that eg. Germany, Scandinavia. It's more a result of the kind of politics Fox News pushes.

Mikeb85 7y ago
Globalism was literally a concerted effort to off-shore blue collar work with the expectation that the population of richer countries would become more educated and work in information intensive jobs (also siphoning off value from said off-shored industries). Where it went somewhat awry is that computers and automation have meant that less jobs are actually required in those sectors that we envisioned people having, leaving a large portion of the population under-employed in low paying service jobs. Globalism was literally a concerted effort undertaken after WWII, this isn't some sort of Fox News level conspiracy theory. It's history, literally stuff in economics textbooks and easily verifiable. As for why Scandinavia and Germany have managed to keep inequality at bay, they've got very robust welfare states and strong labour unions.
- tim333 7y ago
  By Fox News politics I mean opposition to stuff like the robust welfare states and strong labour unions you mention.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- ido 7y ago
  All European welfare states have been in the process of dismantling & privatising post Reagan/Tatcher (e.g. in Berlin the city sold most public housing estates to private investors decades ago). They haven't deteriorated as fast as the US and UK but the trend is clear.
yomly 7y ago
Right, and Germany is seeing a rise in populism too so maybe they're also facing similar macro trends... It's worth noting that both Scandinavia and Germany are far less economically libertarian than most Americans would palate too
- Mikeb85 7y ago
  Well they're seeing a rise in immigration (which economically speaking has the same effect as offshoring) which is large enough to offset the equalising effects of the welfare state, and while I'm not super up to date on their politics, I'd guess the welfare state might also be weakening because of the need to support the influx of new immigrants. Also, crime rises/falls depending on economic outcomes for the lower segment of the population. If there's too many immigrants unable to find jobs or integrate, crime rises which can cause discontent.
  - aries1980 7y ago
    > Well they're seeing a rise in immigration (which economically speaking has the same effect as offshoring) Not really, because some or all of he income of these immigrants are taxed and spent domestically.
    - Mikeb85 7y ago
      Decreasing the cost of labour through immigration is the same. Most immigrants also send money back home. So yes it's the same effect even if the it's not quite the same amount.
      - aries1980 7y ago
        But discounting the labour cost is not the only dimension. These immigrants are spending money domestically, increasing the domestic output, creating new market demands, paying rents, etc. I do understand your logic, but my argument is while offshore money is spent outside the borders, immigrants spend most of their income domestically and pay their taxes, which is a too big difference to put it into the same category.

plesiv 7y ago

I read OP's comment more as a neutral statement of a fact than as a justification for the globalization processes. I'd be willing to wager that none of the actors pushing these processes are minding either of these two inequality facts (inequality in developed countries rising, inequality is developing countries falling). These actors are driven by their incentives and the current system makes it good for them to further globalization - very much in the same way that it's good for them not need to be careful to be environmentally friendly. At least to me, "f*g over someone" would imply malicious intent - these economic agents are neither benevolent nor malicious - they simply don't care. In a slightly wider context, this is exactly why an AGI is considered dangerous.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
That's the Big Lie of economics - that this is just how it is, and people don't/shouldn't care. In fact mainstream neoliberal economic theory has always been about rationalising political actions that operate against the interests of most of the population. The origination and promotion of these economic myths is calculated, deliberate, and absolutely malicious in intent. The Chicago School didn't just happen - it was created, promoted, funded and nurtured as a dogmatic political movement opposed to Keynesianism. Individual actors may not care, but that's exactly the problem -they've been incentivised not to. Under a more humane system, they could just as easily be incentivised towards other actions.