3 ms·

> > historically very popular > When? Not for a long time. Slavery and witchcraft were historically very popular ... The wikipedia article places it as 16th t

> > historically very popular > When? Not for a long time. Slavery and witchcraft were historically very popular ... The wikipedia article places it as 16th to 19th century which is a longer time period than Globalism was popular. If the end of my post wasn't clear, I'm not a fan of Mercantilism but one does need to understand the other side. Although a big critique I have of Globalism is that the gains from trade are not evenly dispersed automatically so countries like the US really need to raise the top tax rate and increase (or at least not lower) redistribution otherwise you get high income equality. Also, slavery and witchcraft are still practiced to this day although maybe not globally popular. > > when you buy stuff you're losing wealth > That's a incredible failure of understanding. I can't believe that's the basis of mercantilism. Why would anyone buy something? Economic theories like Mercantilism are on the country level so individuals would still buy stuff because they're not practicing Mercantilism. On the country level, yeah you don't buy stuff. If your citizens love coffee and your climate doesn't support growing coffee beans then you get a South America colony so now your climate does support growing coffee beans. Somebody's answer to the house example is pretty good to read as well - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43630218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43630218 > Many transactions are better with people who happen to be outside the borders of your country - why wouldn't they be? At the macro-level sure. However, if the USA had continued to practices mercantilism post-WW2 then we wouldn't have complaints about the lack of manufacturing. The industrial plants in China would've never been built by US investment because that's literally handing money away to another country. If China doesn't have a factory its irrelevant if their labor is cheaper; the only labor with access to a factory is the USA.

LastTrain 2y ago
> The wikipedia article places it as 16th to 19th century which is a longer time period than Globalism was popular. When did globalism stop being popular?
- dgfl 2y ago
  Did you happen to miss recent US news?
  - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
    > > When did globalism stop being popular? > Did you happen to miss recent US news? 1. Not every reader lives in the USA 2. In my observation (not in the USA) in the last years (and also months/weeks) it has rather been a strong veering round back and forth of "globalism is good" vs "globalism is bad" with no clear observable direction at which side the pendulum will stop.
    - LastTrain 2y ago
      Globalism is not a “was” by any stretch of the imagination inside or outside of the US.
  - LastTrain 2y ago
    Yeah, a percentage of the U.S. Republican Party are isolationist, that doesn’t make globalism 19th century-style dead. Jesus fucking christballs.
mmooss 2y ago
> Although a big critique I have of Globalism is that the gains from trade are not evenly dispersed automatically so countries like the US really need to raise the top tax rate and increase (or at least not lower) redistribution otherwise you get high income equality. I agree with that critique, though it may be a problem with this specific version of Globalism, not globalism itself. But do you think there is more equitable distribution with mercantilism or protectionism? Why would that be? In those systems government officials choose who gets the benefits; you can't get them for yourself. Also, they tend to oppress less powerful countries - globalism's astounding record of raising people from poverty all over the world is absolutely unmatched. People take for granted the relative prosperity in China, India, Brazil, ... - nothing like it ever happened before. > if the USA had continued to practices mercantilism post-WW2 then we wouldn't have complaints about the lack of manufacturing. You assume this mercantilist government can effectively manage manufacturing, and that it wouldn't deteriorate, having no competition. Industry without competition tends to do that. Basically, enshittification is doing that intentionally. With only 5% of the population the US would not have nearly enough manufacturing capacity to meet modern needs. Finally, keeping people in manufacturing (how? by force?) would prevent them from taking the newer, higher productivity jobs that followed. The US was much less wealthy - order of magnitude at least - in the 1950s (or whatever golden age people think of). You don't want to go back to that economy. > The industrial plants in China would've never been built by US investment because that's literally handing money away to another country. If it was handing away money, then why would someone invest in it? They invest because the investment generates returns, in this case massive returns that changed hundreds of millions of lives and provided wealth that was used to buy and invest in yet more things.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  > I agree with that critique, though it may be a problem with this specific version of Globalism, not globalism itself. Well, there's nothing about Globalism that enforces this so it's really a complaint about most if-not all Globalism. > With only 5% of the population the US would not have nearly enough manufacturing capacity to meet modern needs. Expand your borders to include say Canada or all of South America. The UK moved up the value chain into industrial jobs while delegating out the cotton farming to their North American _Colony_ (as well as their South East Asian colony). > If it was handing away money, then why would someone invest in it? They invest because the investment generates returns, in this case massive returns that changed hundreds of millions of lives and provided wealth that was used to buy and invest in yet more things. Sending over capital goods in exchange for future considerations is not a Mercantilism argument. The reason why somebody would invest in it is because they're a Globalist. The reason why "we" switched from Mercantilism to Globalism is because it generates more growth but you can't use Globalism arguments in a Mercantilism framework unless you're making the argument to switch frameworks. (Also Mercantilism is also causing income equality by having an underclass in your colonies to support a wealthier main land; but the mainland isn't going to be complaining about being poor).

LastTrain 2y ago

> The wikipedia article places it as 16th to 19th century which is a longer time period than Globalism was popular. When did globalism stop being popular?

dgfl 2y ago
Did you happen to miss recent US news?
- aleph_minus_one 2y ago
  > > When did globalism stop being popular? > Did you happen to miss recent US news? 1. Not every reader lives in the USA 2. In my observation (not in the USA) in the last years (and also months/weeks) it has rather been a strong veering round back and forth of "globalism is good" vs "globalism is bad" with no clear observable direction at which side the pendulum will stop.
  - LastTrain 2y ago
    Globalism is not a “was” by any stretch of the imagination inside or outside of the US.
- LastTrain 2y ago
  Yeah, a percentage of the U.S. Republican Party are isolationist, that doesn’t make globalism 19th century-style dead. Jesus fucking christballs.

mmooss 2y ago

> Although a big critique I have of Globalism is that the gains from trade are not evenly dispersed automatically so countries like the US really need to raise the top tax rate and increase (or at least not lower) redistribution otherwise you get high income equality. I agree with that critique, though it may be a problem with this specific version of Globalism, not globalism itself. But do you think there is more equitable distribution with mercantilism or protectionism? Why would that be? In those systems government officials choose who gets the benefits; you can't get them for yourself. Also, they tend to oppress less powerful countries - globalism's astounding record of raising people from poverty all over the world is absolutely unmatched. People take for granted the relative prosperity in China, India, Brazil, ... - nothing like it ever happened before. > if the USA had continued to practices mercantilism post-WW2 then we wouldn't have complaints about the lack of manufacturing. You assume this mercantilist government can effectively manage manufacturing, and that it wouldn't deteriorate, having no competition. Industry without competition tends to do that. Basically, enshittification is doing that intentionally. With only 5% of the population the US would not have nearly enough manufacturing capacity to meet modern needs. Finally, keeping people in manufacturing (how? by force?) would prevent them from taking the newer, higher productivity jobs that followed. The US was much less wealthy - order of magnitude at least - in the 1950s (or whatever golden age people think of). You don't want to go back to that economy. > The industrial plants in China would've never been built by US investment because that's literally handing money away to another country. If it was handing away money, then why would someone invest in it? They invest because the investment generates returns, in this case massive returns that changed hundreds of millions of lives and provided wealth that was used to buy and invest in yet more things.

lesuorac 2y ago
> I agree with that critique, though it may be a problem with this specific version of Globalism, not globalism itself. Well, there's nothing about Globalism that enforces this so it's really a complaint about most if-not all Globalism. > With only 5% of the population the US would not have nearly enough manufacturing capacity to meet modern needs. Expand your borders to include say Canada or all of South America. The UK moved up the value chain into industrial jobs while delegating out the cotton farming to their North American _Colony_ (as well as their South East Asian colony). > If it was handing away money, then why would someone invest in it? They invest because the investment generates returns, in this case massive returns that changed hundreds of millions of lives and provided wealth that was used to buy and invest in yet more things. Sending over capital goods in exchange for future considerations is not a Mercantilism argument. The reason why somebody would invest in it is because they're a Globalist. The reason why "we" switched from Mercantilism to Globalism is because it generates more growth but you can't use Globalism arguments in a Mercantilism framework unless you're making the argument to switch frameworks. (Also Mercantilism is also causing income equality by having an underclass in your colonies to support a wealthier main land; but the mainland isn't going to be complaining about being poor).