4 ms·

Richer countries being self sufficient. Poorer countries being self sufficient.

by carom 4y ago

thefounder 4y ago
So your solution is to ban trade, right? No more coconut unless you plant coconut trees in your suboptimal environment (i.e in Norway). I can't wait for that small and poor country to manufacture its own modern chips (perhaps in 100-200 years) so that it can enjoy the technology available today(i.e cheap smartphones, TVs etc). I thought HN is smarter than that. The future is multi planetary not self sufficiency.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  > The future is multi planetary not self sufficiency Even if there were a network of planets. They'd need to be self sufficient in key areas (food, air, water, shelter) as the time and energy needed to trade is likely too much for robust exchanges.
  - thefounder 4y ago
    It may become self sufficient(whatever that means) but there is little incentive to do so due the waste of resources/inefficiencies. If you have valuable goods/services you can offset the transport costs and exchange them for food or whatever you need. The same rules apply at the individual level. How many engineers are self sufficient? How many cities are self sufficient? Is it really worth it to build all kind of redudant systems (i.e people building bunkers for their families and learning survival skills) ? I think we already know the answer.
    - true_religion 4y ago
      Self sufficiency is what keeps you from starving when trade has a down turn. The US is a net food exporter so even if the tech industry implodes, the US still has food for its home market, and can raise trade barriers to keep it at home. On the other hand countries that must import food, suffer greatly when there’s any economic shock. Basic food stocks can double or tripe in price due to inflation affecting imports most strongly. And the country is trapped: it must export in order to get money to buy food, however demand is already down. Add to that that many counties run on credit, so failing an import/export balance leads to additional debt, increased inflation, and a vicious spiral to economic ruin.
- carom 4y ago
  Where did I say we should ban trade? I would just like life to continue as normal if something like a war or global pandemic breaks out. The US is moving in an amazing direction with the TSMC fab.
  - thefounder 4y ago
    What exactly self sufficiency means if not less trade and less capital efficiency? Whoever abandons the globalisation will find itself poorer. That was my whole point. And yeah, TSMC is a global/foreign company so that praised investment is part of the globalisation. The moment U.S becomes protectionist against Taiwan you can say good bye to TSMC. TSMC in the U.S does not represent the death of globalisation. I would say on the contrary. U.S provided good incentives for TMSC and other GLOBAL players to manufacture in the U.S. When the incentives move somewhere else so the capital/factories(i.e see the exodus from China). No matter how you spin it globalisation is here to stay regardless of what one big player does(i.e U.S or China).
    - carom 4y ago
      Less trade does not mean banning trade. The US doesn't need to become protectionist against Taiwan, China could establish a blockade in the South China Sea.
- pannSun 4y ago
  > ban trade Yes those are the only two options, totally unrestricted free trade*, or a total ban on trade. There's no middle ground, no spectrum. *Except for what restrictions "free trade" agreements place on national legislation, of course. Can't have rogue countries reducing copyright length or the scope of patentable subject matter.
  - thefounder 4y ago
    So you think a less free trade will reduce copyright length? I imagine in a protectionist and nationalist world the small, poor country will always get the short stick of the bargain. That or invasion.
    - pannSun 4y ago
      "Good fences make good neighbors." But you're conflating nationalism with imperialism, as is so common these days. And somehow you think that in the current system where multinational corporations sneak anti-consumer legislation into trade deals, poor countries don't get the short stick. Why? Who do you think benefits when poor countries are made to agree to onerous patent and copyright protections, and forced open internal markets, that prevents them from growing or protecting local industries? > So you think a less free trade will reduce copyright length? Copyright length is literally written into trade agreements and other international treaties, yet you are incredulous?
HDThoreaun 4y ago
This would lead to massive lifestyle differences between rich and poor countries, which would continue to expand the wage gap between rich and poor countries, which would continue to incentivize sending low skill jobs to poor countries. Globalization is inevitable unless countries are able to ban trade.
cycrutchfield 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarky Does not exactly sound like a desirable state

Richer countries being self sufficient. Poorer countries being self sufficient.

by carom 4y ago

Richer countries being self sufficient. Poorer countries being self sufficient.

So your solution is to ban trade, right? No more coconut unless you plant coconut trees in your suboptimal environment (i.e in Norway). I can't wait for that small and poor country to manufacture its own modern chips (perhaps in 100-200 years) so that it can enjoy the technology available today(i.e cheap smartphones, TVs etc). I thought HN is smarter than that. The future is multi planetary not self sufficiency.

paulryanrogers 4y ago
> The future is multi planetary not self sufficiency Even if there were a network of planets. They'd need to be self sufficient in key areas (food, air, water, shelter) as the time and energy needed to trade is likely too much for robust exchanges.
- thefounder 4y ago
  It may become self sufficient(whatever that means) but there is little incentive to do so due the waste of resources/inefficiencies. If you have valuable goods/services you can offset the transport costs and exchange them for food or whatever you need. The same rules apply at the individual level. How many engineers are self sufficient? How many cities are self sufficient? Is it really worth it to build all kind of redudant systems (i.e people building bunkers for their families and learning survival skills) ? I think we already know the answer.
  - true_religion 4y ago
    Self sufficiency is what keeps you from starving when trade has a down turn. The US is a net food exporter so even if the tech industry implodes, the US still has food for its home market, and can raise trade barriers to keep it at home. On the other hand countries that must import food, suffer greatly when there’s any economic shock. Basic food stocks can double or tripe in price due to inflation affecting imports most strongly. And the country is trapped: it must export in order to get money to buy food, however demand is already down. Add to that that many counties run on credit, so failing an import/export balance leads to additional debt, increased inflation, and a vicious spiral to economic ruin.
carom 4y ago
Where did I say we should ban trade? I would just like life to continue as normal if something like a war or global pandemic breaks out. The US is moving in an amazing direction with the TSMC fab.
- thefounder 4y ago
  What exactly self sufficiency means if not less trade and less capital efficiency? Whoever abandons the globalisation will find itself poorer. That was my whole point. And yeah, TSMC is a global/foreign company so that praised investment is part of the globalisation. The moment U.S becomes protectionist against Taiwan you can say good bye to TSMC. TSMC in the U.S does not represent the death of globalisation. I would say on the contrary. U.S provided good incentives for TMSC and other GLOBAL players to manufacture in the U.S. When the incentives move somewhere else so the capital/factories(i.e see the exodus from China). No matter how you spin it globalisation is here to stay regardless of what one big player does(i.e U.S or China).
  - carom 4y ago
    Less trade does not mean banning trade. The US doesn't need to become protectionist against Taiwan, China could establish a blockade in the South China Sea.
pannSun 4y ago
> ban trade Yes those are the only two options, totally unrestricted free trade*, or a total ban on trade. There's no middle ground, no spectrum. *Except for what restrictions "free trade" agreements place on national legislation, of course. Can't have rogue countries reducing copyright length or the scope of patentable subject matter.
- thefounder 4y ago
  So you think a less free trade will reduce copyright length? I imagine in a protectionist and nationalist world the small, poor country will always get the short stick of the bargain. That or invasion.
  - pannSun 4y ago
    "Good fences make good neighbors." But you're conflating nationalism with imperialism, as is so common these days. And somehow you think that in the current system where multinational corporations sneak anti-consumer legislation into trade deals, poor countries don't get the short stick. Why? Who do you think benefits when poor countries are made to agree to onerous patent and copyright protections, and forced open internal markets, that prevents them from growing or protecting local industries? > So you think a less free trade will reduce copyright length? Copyright length is literally written into trade agreements and other international treaties, yet you are incredulous?

HDThoreaun 4y ago

This would lead to massive lifestyle differences between rich and poor countries, which would continue to expand the wage gap between rich and poor countries, which would continue to incentivize sending low skill jobs to poor countries. Globalization is inevitable unless countries are able to ban trade.

cycrutchfield 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarky Does not exactly sound like a desirable state