5 ms·

They have already tried your strategy. Economists thought free global markets would lead to liberalization in other governments. That has proved to be utterly u

They have already tried your strategy. Economists thought free global markets would lead to liberalization in other governments. That has proved to be utterly untrue with China and as a result they have become the worlds manufacturing hub, while becoming more and more totalitarian. Production wise, an economy that is not concerned with democratic institutions or reducing inequality will outperform one that is. With that in mind, globalization is basically a race to the bottom human rights wise.

claudeganon 6y ago
I’m not sure how much economists believed this as they were materially incentivized to parrot this logic. Most of economics is just laundering the interests of the ruling class with spurious math and heuristics that are unmoored from political and social realities.
- seamyb88 6y ago
  Don't upset the budding entrepreneurs on HN, their grasp of computers is fantastic but don't expect them to have ever seen a paper on social theory. Your comment is right on the money!
- zajd 6y ago
  100% correct, not surprising to see it downvoted here on bootlicker central
nickff 6y ago
Your first point is correct, but your second point is not. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita demonstrated this in "The Logic of Political Survival", and others have come to similar findings. Briefly, rising incomes under a non-democratic regime lead to a local maximum of growth, as totalitarianism is inextricably linked with economically inefficient institutions. As an autocrat, your top priority is to compensate those who keep you in power, which requires wealth extraction from the productive; this disincentivises efficient production. Unfortunately, nothing about rising wealth will necessarily lead to regime liberalization. "Reducing inequality" is very different from democracy, and would probably lead to reduced economic efficiency, as it necessarily reduces the incentives for efficient production.
- bluetomcat 6y ago
  > As an autocrat, your top priority is to compensate those who keep you in power, which requires wealth extraction from the productive That cost is insignificant when the ruling nomenclature is a relatively small portion of the population and when basic workers rights are not respected. Especially in manufacturing stuff on a pipeline in huge quantities, a totalitarian system can be much more effective output-wise, at the cost of disregarding any environmental and human condition externalities.
  - nickff 6y ago
    The cost of compensating the “selectorate” is actually more related to regime organization (i.e. military dictatorship vs. rigged elections) than to work conditions. This cost can be extremely high, as the autocrat has to pay off enough people to ensure that rivals cannot achieve an advantage.
    - bluetomcat 6y ago
      Most totalitarian leaders use fear and repression as tools for maintaining the power structure. Defecting members of the nomenclature and their families are imprisoned and tortured. With modern methods of surveillance and control, that doesn't require a huge army of trusted agents, as was the case in the Eastern bloc, for example.
      - nickff 6y ago
        Even extremely repressive regimes will bribe the selectorate; as an example, you can look at North Korea (or Maoist China), where the peasants were starving and beaten, but the party officials have/had new cars.
- politician 6y ago
  See also "Rules for Rulers" from CGP Grey for an animated treatment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
- deleted 6y ago
Gravityloss 6y ago
996 in the west. I think many people who operate their own service businesses already run like this. At least over here, immigrants are heavily represented there.
Aunche 6y ago
China was more totalitarian before globalization. Without it, they would be more like North Korea. You don't need technology to send people to labor camp or burn books. Globalization is why extreme poverty has plummeted in the last few decades. Hundreds of millions of people chose to leave their subsidence farm to work long hours in a factory because it's still an improvement for the quality of life of themselves and their families. Sure it would be better if an Indonesia factory worker got paid $20 a day instead of $10, but nobody is offering them $20 and you can't force anyone to.
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  But you can, right? It's a political choice not to (for example) impose import taxes on goods based on the difference between wages in the two countries concerned. Not doing this is bad for people, but good for capital.
  - Aunche 6y ago
    The US government can't audit every order of widgets to see whether the difference between wages is accurate. Even if it were possible, this would just punish poorer countries where it's riskier to do business in.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    You can, but should you? $10 a day is better than the $5 they would get before. More is better of course, but your option isn't pay everyone the same it is pay some and not others.
    - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
      Well my option is to remove the possibility of labour cost arbitrage through tariffs/customs duties. Like, I'm Irish, so I have benefited from this trend for my whole life, but that doesn't make it right.
      - smallnamespace 6y ago
ralala 6y ago
> Production wise, an economy that is not concerned with democratic institutions or reducing inequality will outperform one that is. The question is: How can the market be adapted to create a fair, innovative and sustainable society, globally? How can a single government force any rules with these goals without lowering the welfare of its inhabitants and thus threaten its reelection?

claudeganon 6y ago

I’m not sure how much economists believed this as they were materially incentivized to parrot this logic. Most of economics is just laundering the interests of the ruling class with spurious math and heuristics that are unmoored from political and social realities.

seamyb88 6y ago
Don't upset the budding entrepreneurs on HN, their grasp of computers is fantastic but don't expect them to have ever seen a paper on social theory. Your comment is right on the money!
zajd 6y ago
100% correct, not surprising to see it downvoted here on bootlicker central

nickff 6y ago

Your first point is correct, but your second point is not. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita demonstrated this in "The Logic of Political Survival", and others have come to similar findings. Briefly, rising incomes under a non-democratic regime lead to a local maximum of growth, as totalitarianism is inextricably linked with economically inefficient institutions. As an autocrat, your top priority is to compensate those who keep you in power, which requires wealth extraction from the productive; this disincentivises efficient production. Unfortunately, nothing about rising wealth will necessarily lead to regime liberalization. "Reducing inequality" is very different from democracy, and would probably lead to reduced economic efficiency, as it necessarily reduces the incentives for efficient production.

bluetomcat 6y ago
> As an autocrat, your top priority is to compensate those who keep you in power, which requires wealth extraction from the productive That cost is insignificant when the ruling nomenclature is a relatively small portion of the population and when basic workers rights are not respected. Especially in manufacturing stuff on a pipeline in huge quantities, a totalitarian system can be much more effective output-wise, at the cost of disregarding any environmental and human condition externalities.
- nickff 6y ago
  The cost of compensating the “selectorate” is actually more related to regime organization (i.e. military dictatorship vs. rigged elections) than to work conditions. This cost can be extremely high, as the autocrat has to pay off enough people to ensure that rivals cannot achieve an advantage.
  - bluetomcat 6y ago
    Most totalitarian leaders use fear and repression as tools for maintaining the power structure. Defecting members of the nomenclature and their families are imprisoned and tortured. With modern methods of surveillance and control, that doesn't require a huge army of trusted agents, as was the case in the Eastern bloc, for example.
    - nickff 6y ago
      Even extremely repressive regimes will bribe the selectorate; as an example, you can look at North Korea (or Maoist China), where the peasants were starving and beaten, but the party officials have/had new cars.
politician 6y ago
See also "Rules for Rulers" from CGP Grey for an animated treatment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
deleted 6y ago

Gravityloss 6y ago

996 in the west. I think many people who operate their own service businesses already run like this. At least over here, immigrants are heavily represented there.

Aunche 6y ago

China was more totalitarian before globalization. Without it, they would be more like North Korea. You don't need technology to send people to labor camp or burn books. Globalization is why extreme poverty has plummeted in the last few decades. Hundreds of millions of people chose to leave their subsidence farm to work long hours in a factory because it's still an improvement for the quality of life of themselves and their families. Sure it would be better if an Indonesia factory worker got paid $20 a day instead of $10, but nobody is offering them $20 and you can't force anyone to.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
But you can, right? It's a political choice not to (for example) impose import taxes on goods based on the difference between wages in the two countries concerned. Not doing this is bad for people, but good for capital.
- Aunche 6y ago
  The US government can't audit every order of widgets to see whether the difference between wages is accurate. Even if it were possible, this would just punish poorer countries where it's riskier to do business in.
- bluGill 6y ago
  You can, but should you? $10 a day is better than the $5 they would get before. More is better of course, but your option isn't pay everyone the same it is pay some and not others.
  - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
    Well my option is to remove the possibility of labour cost arbitrage through tariffs/customs duties. Like, I'm Irish, so I have benefited from this trend for my whole life, but that doesn't make it right.
    - smallnamespace 6y ago

ralala 6y ago

> Production wise, an economy that is not concerned with democratic institutions or reducing inequality will outperform one that is. The question is: How can the market be adapted to create a fair, innovative and sustainable society, globally? How can a single government force any rules with these goals without lowering the welfare of its inhabitants and thus threaten its reelection?