4 ms·

>Academics do not need to live in a place in order to study it. I mean, pretty sure biologists would disagree. Maybe economists need to rethink their trade if

>Academics do not need to live in a place in order to study it. I mean, pretty sure biologists would disagree. Maybe economists need to rethink their trade if that’s the prevailing mindset. The idea that you are modeling a social structure that you don’t think you need to have ever been a part of or experienced is pretty rich. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but my impression is that the US opened its arms to free trade and the rest of world shrugged and took advantage. Non-reciprocal free trade might be good for the US economy on the whole, but when a handful of people control half the wealth, and their half is the part of the economy that reaps the benefit while everyone else sees full time employment harder to come by and inflation adjusted wages stand still for 3 decades, I think it’s probably a bad policy for a democratic republic.

sangnoir 7y ago
> my impression is that the US opened its arms to free trade and the rest of world shrugged and took advantage. The rest of the world also took hits in some industries - US farm subsidies destroyed corn farming in poor countries Different US industries fared differently - without globalization, Silicon Valley (and American tech in general) as well as Wall street wouldn't be as globally dominant as they are > I think it’s probably a bad policy for a democratic republic. I think it could work great for a democratic republic with sane corporate tax and safety net policies to more evenly distribute the upside
- riversflow 7y ago
  >I think it could work great for a democratic republic with sane corporate tax and safety net policies to more evenly distribute the upside True. But how would modern medicine have faired? I think the bigger issue with globalization is that it has a huge environmental impact and makes our species more susceptible to the effects of climate change. We ought to at least enforce free trade policy better; I can tell you first hand that competing against unregulated competitors in manufacturing is hilariously unfair. If we really cared about the Environment or Human rights we would at least level the playing field in markets we control. It’s cheaper to buy from China largely because of our regulatory environment.

sangnoir 7y ago

> my impression is that the US opened its arms to free trade and the rest of world shrugged and took advantage. The rest of the world also took hits in some industries - US farm subsidies destroyed corn farming in poor countries Different US industries fared differently - without globalization, Silicon Valley (and American tech in general) as well as Wall street wouldn't be as globally dominant as they are > I think it’s probably a bad policy for a democratic republic. I think it could work great for a democratic republic with sane corporate tax and safety net policies to more evenly distribute the upside

riversflow 7y ago
>I think it could work great for a democratic republic with sane corporate tax and safety net policies to more evenly distribute the upside True. But how would modern medicine have faired? I think the bigger issue with globalization is that it has a huge environmental impact and makes our species more susceptible to the effects of climate change. We ought to at least enforce free trade policy better; I can tell you first hand that competing against unregulated competitors in manufacturing is hilariously unfair. If we really cared about the Environment or Human rights we would at least level the playing field in markets we control. It’s cheaper to buy from China largely because of our regulatory environment.