4 ms·

Sound pointlessly nationalist. Because of all of my electronics being assembled in China, there have been millions of people that were pulled out of poverty.

readarticle 6y ago
Sounds pointlessly globalist. In and of itself, what value does raising the living standard of millions of poor Chinese provide to Americans?
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > In and of itself, what value does raising the living standard of millions of poor Chinese provide to Americans? Rising living standard means more consumers that can buy American goods, and it also means that the likelihood of civil war/uprisings due to poverty goes down, which in turn reduces the potential for wars.
  - readarticle 6y ago
    Assuming a vacuum, the larger market is always fair, but I don’t see how it’s at all possible to value the presence or absence of conflict without a context.
    - mschuster91 6y ago
      > but I don’t see how it’s at all possible to value the presence or absence of conflict without a context. Taking into account how much the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts have cost the US in money, how much lives and potential was lost, is actually easy. Don't get me wrong, it was a good intention to get rid of the Taliban and Saddam, but the execution failed horribly. And that were backyard 3rd world countries. A conflict involving China would be an utter bloodshed, especially if it devolves into nuclear war, and it would totally destroy the US and probably EU economy. We're seeing how much we depend on China now with the 'rona crisis, and that is a "China does their best effort to fulfill Western orders for anything from toys to medical PPE" scenario and not a "China is at war with the US and doesn't deliver anything to them and their allies" scenario. Politicians have also realized this but renationalizing even parts of what was outsourced to China will take decades. Until that happens China has the Western states by the balls, figuratively - and given how they acted with delivering PPE "donations" to Italy and other states that the EU left to fend alone they know this and are absolutely willing to use this as leverage to keep the US and EU from interfering in their eradications of Uighur Muslims and Tibetan people.
riversflow 6y ago
at what environmental cost though? Say what you will about the US, it does a decent enough job at protecting the environment from business. If we poison the planet in the process of bringing millions out of poverty I think that's a net loss.
anml 6y ago
Sounds pointlessly corporate. Globalization has put millions of people in the West into poverty. Globalization is a scheme by corporations to get cheaper labor and have the whole world compete against each other while destroying a healthy societal coherence.
- mikechen233 6y ago
  That's a domestic issue in the United States. US GDP has grown steadily during the last 30 years. The corporate earnings of the s&p 500 has went up by multiple folds. Companies like Microsoft, Apple, Nike , McDonald, Johnson & Johnson etc are earnings more money from around the world then ever before. The record levels of s&p stock buybacks tells you that companies have more money than they know what to do with it. So the US is earning a lot more money from all of globalization. Yet all of this earning is not benefited the lower class Americans. It should have been distributed better internally within the US. Yet, the politics within the US is preventing that from happening. But have you thought about what other countries feels about US dominating in so many industries? Other countries need income as well. They have people to feed. From a equality stand point, they should also enjoy similar quality of life that developed countries are enjoying. If you have visited a developing country, you would know that life is so much different there than here in US. Globalization lifted hundreds of millions of people out of proverty around the world, not only in China, but also in Philippines, Thailand, vitenem, etc. Then these people have more money to spend on more expensive US goods, iPhones, computers, Starbucks etc. Globalization didn't put millions in the developed world in poverty, uneven tax system, economic distribution system, government that doesn't invest in the lower class population did. In the US for example, you have record jobs creation, yet a lot of companies say they can't hire the right talent. They have to hire h1bs. From a personal experience, a lot of companies would love to hire locally yet they can't because there is no talent available. The fundamental issue is that the education system does not produce enough talents needed by the job market.
  - throw51319 6y ago
    Government needs to direct some of the fruits of globalization to invest in America. Individual large companies, even if big, do not have the incentive to invest in long-term and nebulous things like education for America.

readarticle 6y ago

Sounds pointlessly globalist. In and of itself, what value does raising the living standard of millions of poor Chinese provide to Americans?

mschuster91 6y ago
> In and of itself, what value does raising the living standard of millions of poor Chinese provide to Americans? Rising living standard means more consumers that can buy American goods, and it also means that the likelihood of civil war/uprisings due to poverty goes down, which in turn reduces the potential for wars.
- readarticle 6y ago
  Assuming a vacuum, the larger market is always fair, but I don’t see how it’s at all possible to value the presence or absence of conflict without a context.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    > but I don’t see how it’s at all possible to value the presence or absence of conflict without a context. Taking into account how much the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts have cost the US in money, how much lives and potential was lost, is actually easy. Don't get me wrong, it was a good intention to get rid of the Taliban and Saddam, but the execution failed horribly. And that were backyard 3rd world countries. A conflict involving China would be an utter bloodshed, especially if it devolves into nuclear war, and it would totally destroy the US and probably EU economy. We're seeing how much we depend on China now with the 'rona crisis, and that is a "China does their best effort to fulfill Western orders for anything from toys to medical PPE" scenario and not a "China is at war with the US and doesn't deliver anything to them and their allies" scenario. Politicians have also realized this but renationalizing even parts of what was outsourced to China will take decades. Until that happens China has the Western states by the balls, figuratively - and given how they acted with delivering PPE "donations" to Italy and other states that the EU left to fend alone they know this and are absolutely willing to use this as leverage to keep the US and EU from interfering in their eradications of Uighur Muslims and Tibetan people.

riversflow 6y ago

at what environmental cost though? Say what you will about the US, it does a decent enough job at protecting the environment from business. If we poison the planet in the process of bringing millions out of poverty I think that's a net loss.

anml 6y ago

Sounds pointlessly corporate. Globalization has put millions of people in the West into poverty. Globalization is a scheme by corporations to get cheaper labor and have the whole world compete against each other while destroying a healthy societal coherence.

mikechen233 6y ago
That's a domestic issue in the United States. US GDP has grown steadily during the last 30 years. The corporate earnings of the s&p 500 has went up by multiple folds. Companies like Microsoft, Apple, Nike , McDonald, Johnson & Johnson etc are earnings more money from around the world then ever before. The record levels of s&p stock buybacks tells you that companies have more money than they know what to do with it. So the US is earning a lot more money from all of globalization. Yet all of this earning is not benefited the lower class Americans. It should have been distributed better internally within the US. Yet, the politics within the US is preventing that from happening. But have you thought about what other countries feels about US dominating in so many industries? Other countries need income as well. They have people to feed. From a equality stand point, they should also enjoy similar quality of life that developed countries are enjoying. If you have visited a developing country, you would know that life is so much different there than here in US. Globalization lifted hundreds of millions of people out of proverty around the world, not only in China, but also in Philippines, Thailand, vitenem, etc. Then these people have more money to spend on more expensive US goods, iPhones, computers, Starbucks etc. Globalization didn't put millions in the developed world in poverty, uneven tax system, economic distribution system, government that doesn't invest in the lower class population did. In the US for example, you have record jobs creation, yet a lot of companies say they can't hire the right talent. They have to hire h1bs. From a personal experience, a lot of companies would love to hire locally yet they can't because there is no talent available. The fundamental issue is that the education system does not produce enough talents needed by the job market.
- throw51319 6y ago
  Government needs to direct some of the fruits of globalization to invest in America. Individual large companies, even if big, do not have the incentive to invest in long-term and nebulous things like education for America.