5 ms·

> That is a factor that’s often overlooked: The Civic Type R—and also many high-end bicycle components—barely make sense from a strict business perspective. ...

> That is a factor that’s often overlooked: The Civic Type R—and also many high-end bicycle components—barely make sense from a strict business perspective. ... International trade has made it possible to pool the global demand for such niche products and make them all in one place, achieving economies of scale that make them (almost) cost-effective. This is such an interesting insight that would never have occurred to me and seems to have a lot of explanatory power.

mmooss 2y ago
Of course there are enormous benefits to globalization: economies of scale, efficiency and lower prices, quality from specialization (wine from France, beer from Germany, etc), increased competition, etc. To think protectionism will benefit the economy is ignorant. The global system of free trade and human rights has been the most free, prosperous, and peaceful era of humanity by far. Whole nations lifted from deep poverty, such as China and India (with still more to be done!). Incredible prosperity for the wealthy. Freedom, self-determination, democracy and human rights as the global norms. Why are we throwing it away again? Much could be done to reform it, but we'll just throw it out?
- 9rx 2y ago
  > Why are we throwing it away again? Because we haven't figured out how to square allowing people the freedom to work in the industries they please, no matter where in the world that industry has found itself, with allowing countries to strictly limit who is allowed inside its borders. The "just learn to code" message never sat well with those who have no interest in coding and now they are rising up to try and take back, so to speak, the work they actually want to do. The far reaching consequences that go along with that are not of their personal concern.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    I've never heard that. I don't think many people migrate for specific industries. People migrate to have any job and some income, regardless of industry. Am I not thinking of some population?
    - 9rx 2y ago
      > I don't think many people migrate for specific industries. "Brain drain" is a always hot topic in my country. Many people from here move to the US for access to certain industries, tech included. They aren't going there to do whatever arbitrary work they can find. Those in the US who love manufacturing aren't moving to China, but that's the issue: They, unless they have something really unique to offer, are going to find it difficult to. Hence why they want to see that work "brought home".
      - mmooss 2y ago
        > "Brain drain" That's a good point; I wasn't thinking of that. Still, the number of immigrants to the US for 'brain drain' jobs I'd guess is relatively small, and Trump supports them to some degree - he likes wealthy immigrants, including in tech. Remember the recent (H-1B?) visa controversy. > Those who love manufacturing Is that really a passion for many people, working on an assembly line? I've read about it as a necessary job to pay the bills that almost nobody likes, and they want their kids to have someting better, etc.
        9rx 2y ago
        > Still, the number of immigrants to the US for 'brain drain' jobs I'd guess is relatively small Right, but it's the converse that is the issue: Americans wanting to do jobs that aren't found (or only found in a limited way) in America. Trump also supports them. The intent is to see things like manufacturing jobs happen more often on American soil so that Americans can do those jobs. > Is that really a passion for many people, working on an assembly line? The idea of it is, at least. I know a lot of people who have impressive manufacturing facilities in their garages just to support it as a hobby. Manufacturing is clearly a relatively common passion. You may have a point that they might come to hate the work if it became their daily reality, but the emotions that drive this sort of thing are never grounded in logic. Besides, it is not like they love the burgers they are flipping right now.
        mmooss 2y ago
- teddyh 2y ago
  If your country outlaws slavery and child labor, but imports freely (i.e. without tariffs) from countries which allows it, why does your country even have those laws? It’s certainly not to protect children or people from slavery; they’ve just exported the negative effects to other countries.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Could you apply your hypothetical? What countries are you talking about? How do you balance the benefits and the costs? If you wanted to improve human rights, what would be the best strategy? Do you think Trump and the GOP are doing it because of labor rights?
    - tourmalinetaco 2y ago
      China, for one, has state-enforced labor of Uyghurs and other minorities: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/against-their-will-the-situation-in-xinjiang https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/against-their-will-the-sit... And, while Mexico is trying to limit forced labor, they’re still one of our bigger exporters of forced labor: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/mexico https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-la... So it’s hardly a hypothetical. As for balancing benefits and costs, slave labor intrinsically weakens the value of labor to any country that imports, so ideally the US would tariff goods that are labor intensive from countries that practice slave labor. In general, taking China off of the UN Human Rights Council would be a good show (for what little the UN does), and countries that oppose slavery should tariff the countries that do it as well. I don’t want a blood diamond on my wife‘s finger, why would I want a blood apple in my mouth? As for Trump, I believe he does so in part, not from an ethics perspective however. I imagine he views slave labor as undercutting US labor value, just as illegal immigration does, and that it plays some part in wrestling manufacturing away from China.
      - mmooss 2y ago
        > taking China off of the UN Human Rights Council would be a good show That's not how legislatures work. It's like saying, 'take Senator Jones off the HHS committee because they are anti-vaccine' - the people in Senator Jones' state are entitled to representation with complete disregard for whether others like their Senator. Legislatures work with power as it is, not as how we want it to be. > for what little the UN does People on the right repeat it, but repetition doesn't make it fact. What do you know, specifically, about what the UN does (about human rights, if that's what you mean). The foundations for international law, which is powerful and effective though imperfect - like domestic law, but lacking the same enforcement mechanisms. > [China and Mexico] If everyone stopped doing all business with anyone in a country that does bad things, there would be no business or trade. Trade enriches the US, and has lifted billions out of poverty - including in China and Mexico. Putting them back into poverty is just reckless. You need to come up with a better solution to your leaky roof than burning down the house.
- agumonkey 2y ago
  Mostly we're reducing it's spread. Countries don't want to rely on others for a core set of industries. Also culturally I think being good at one or two things is unhealthy. My 2 cents.
teddyh 2y ago
This – eliminating costs and other negative effects of transportation – is one of the major reasons people started living in large cities, instead of spreading themselves out in small tribes across the land.

mmooss 2y ago

Of course there are enormous benefits to globalization: economies of scale, efficiency and lower prices, quality from specialization (wine from France, beer from Germany, etc), increased competition, etc. To think protectionism will benefit the economy is ignorant. The global system of free trade and human rights has been the most free, prosperous, and peaceful era of humanity by far. Whole nations lifted from deep poverty, such as China and India (with still more to be done!). Incredible prosperity for the wealthy. Freedom, self-determination, democracy and human rights as the global norms. Why are we throwing it away again? Much could be done to reform it, but we'll just throw it out?

9rx 2y ago
> Why are we throwing it away again? Because we haven't figured out how to square allowing people the freedom to work in the industries they please, no matter where in the world that industry has found itself, with allowing countries to strictly limit who is allowed inside its borders. The "just learn to code" message never sat well with those who have no interest in coding and now they are rising up to try and take back, so to speak, the work they actually want to do. The far reaching consequences that go along with that are not of their personal concern.
- mmooss 2y ago
  I've never heard that. I don't think many people migrate for specific industries. People migrate to have any job and some income, regardless of industry. Am I not thinking of some population?
  - 9rx 2y ago
    > I don't think many people migrate for specific industries. "Brain drain" is a always hot topic in my country. Many people from here move to the US for access to certain industries, tech included. They aren't going there to do whatever arbitrary work they can find. Those in the US who love manufacturing aren't moving to China, but that's the issue: They, unless they have something really unique to offer, are going to find it difficult to. Hence why they want to see that work "brought home".
    - mmooss 2y ago
      > "Brain drain" That's a good point; I wasn't thinking of that. Still, the number of immigrants to the US for 'brain drain' jobs I'd guess is relatively small, and Trump supports them to some degree - he likes wealthy immigrants, including in tech. Remember the recent (H-1B?) visa controversy. > Those who love manufacturing Is that really a passion for many people, working on an assembly line? I've read about it as a necessary job to pay the bills that almost nobody likes, and they want their kids to have someting better, etc.
      - 9rx 2y ago
        > Still, the number of immigrants to the US for 'brain drain' jobs I'd guess is relatively small Right, but it's the converse that is the issue: Americans wanting to do jobs that aren't found (or only found in a limited way) in America. Trump also supports them. The intent is to see things like manufacturing jobs happen more often on American soil so that Americans can do those jobs. > Is that really a passion for many people, working on an assembly line? The idea of it is, at least. I know a lot of people who have impressive manufacturing facilities in their garages just to support it as a hobby. Manufacturing is clearly a relatively common passion. You may have a point that they might come to hate the work if it became their daily reality, but the emotions that drive this sort of thing are never grounded in logic. Besides, it is not like they love the burgers they are flipping right now.
        mmooss 2y ago
teddyh 2y ago
If your country outlaws slavery and child labor, but imports freely (i.e. without tariffs) from countries which allows it, why does your country even have those laws? It’s certainly not to protect children or people from slavery; they’ve just exported the negative effects to other countries.
- mmooss 2y ago
  Could you apply your hypothetical? What countries are you talking about? How do you balance the benefits and the costs? If you wanted to improve human rights, what would be the best strategy? Do you think Trump and the GOP are doing it because of labor rights?
  - tourmalinetaco 2y ago
    China, for one, has state-enforced labor of Uyghurs and other minorities: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/against-their-will-the-situation-in-xinjiang https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/against-their-will-the-sit... And, while Mexico is trying to limit forced labor, they’re still one of our bigger exporters of forced labor: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/mexico https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-la... So it’s hardly a hypothetical. As for balancing benefits and costs, slave labor intrinsically weakens the value of labor to any country that imports, so ideally the US would tariff goods that are labor intensive from countries that practice slave labor. In general, taking China off of the UN Human Rights Council would be a good show (for what little the UN does), and countries that oppose slavery should tariff the countries that do it as well. I don’t want a blood diamond on my wife‘s finger, why would I want a blood apple in my mouth? As for Trump, I believe he does so in part, not from an ethics perspective however. I imagine he views slave labor as undercutting US labor value, just as illegal immigration does, and that it plays some part in wrestling manufacturing away from China.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      > taking China off of the UN Human Rights Council would be a good show That's not how legislatures work. It's like saying, 'take Senator Jones off the HHS committee because they are anti-vaccine' - the people in Senator Jones' state are entitled to representation with complete disregard for whether others like their Senator. Legislatures work with power as it is, not as how we want it to be. > for what little the UN does People on the right repeat it, but repetition doesn't make it fact. What do you know, specifically, about what the UN does (about human rights, if that's what you mean). The foundations for international law, which is powerful and effective though imperfect - like domestic law, but lacking the same enforcement mechanisms. > [China and Mexico] If everyone stopped doing all business with anyone in a country that does bad things, there would be no business or trade. Trade enriches the US, and has lifted billions out of poverty - including in China and Mexico. Putting them back into poverty is just reckless. You need to come up with a better solution to your leaky roof than burning down the house.
agumonkey 2y ago
Mostly we're reducing it's spread. Countries don't want to rely on others for a core set of industries. Also culturally I think being good at one or two things is unhealthy. My 2 cents.

teddyh 2y ago

This – eliminating costs and other negative effects of transportation – is one of the major reasons people started living in large cities, instead of spreading themselves out in small tribes across the land.