4 ms·

Seems like you only look at one side. I thought by now we have mostly understood that unlimited globalization also has dark sides, especially for the broader lo

by Faark 7y ago

Seems like you only look at one side. I thought by now we have mostly understood that unlimited globalization also has dark sides, especially for the broader local population in richer countries. To me the sentiment of GPs post felt like "internet makes it better on average for all of us". You're "now I very easy can find even cheaper workers" doesn't support that, even though it certainly is an improvement to a select few at the very bottom.

codegeek 7y ago
I focussed mostly on the jobs thing. But Internet has brought many other great things to the world so I think it is a bit myopic to just focus on the "hire cheaper workers" thing. Just the fact that you can communicate your opinions to me while we both are sitting somewhere totally different is the power of internet. It brings plenty of good. Some bad, sure. If not for internet, I would probably never talk to you and not exchange our different perspectives.
oblio 7y ago
> even though it certainly is an improvement to a select few at the very bottom 1. "a select few" is disingenuous. A lot of people have benefited from it. 2. One could say that morally, the people "at the very bottom" deserve more help than "the broader local population in richer countries".
- Faark 7y ago
  1. I admit "select few" being hyperbole. The intended sentiment was it helping fewer people than it is screwing over. 2. Its nice you want to help the people who have it the worst. But you better be ready for the consequences, like a fascist getting 23% of votes a few days ago in a local german election. What people feel is important. Yes, the policy might be raising living standards of everyone. But if it predominantly helps those at the top of the capitalist system and some "few" people far away, then people will feel screwed over and demand change. Though by now we seem to get closer to "revolution". I'd prefer not to live through a revolution.

by Faark 7y ago

codegeek 7y ago

I focussed mostly on the jobs thing. But Internet has brought many other great things to the world so I think it is a bit myopic to just focus on the "hire cheaper workers" thing. Just the fact that you can communicate your opinions to me while we both are sitting somewhere totally different is the power of internet. It brings plenty of good. Some bad, sure. If not for internet, I would probably never talk to you and not exchange our different perspectives.

oblio 7y ago

> even though it certainly is an improvement to a select few at the very bottom 1. "a select few" is disingenuous. A lot of people have benefited from it. 2. One could say that morally, the people "at the very bottom" deserve more help than "the broader local population in richer countries".

Faark 7y ago
1. I admit "select few" being hyperbole. The intended sentiment was it helping fewer people than it is screwing over. 2. Its nice you want to help the people who have it the worst. But you better be ready for the consequences, like a fascist getting 23% of votes a few days ago in a local german election. What people feel is important. Yes, the policy might be raising living standards of everyone. But if it predominantly helps those at the top of the capitalist system and some "few" people far away, then people will feel screwed over and demand change. Though by now we seem to get closer to "revolution". I'd prefer not to live through a revolution.