3 ms·

> I hope that the association makes protectionism politically taboo for decades to come. That is waaaay too black and white. Trump's actions != protectionism,

by palmotea 11mo ago

> I hope that the association makes protectionism politically taboo for decades to come. That is waaaay too black and white. Trump's actions != protectionism, Trump's actions ⊂ protectionism (and have been stupid). Free trade and globalization has failed most of the world in pretty serious ways (though it's been great for the much of the elite, floating on top of big piles of capital). Protectionism is important, it just needs to be conducted in a smarter way (instead of indiscriminately tariffing everyone all the sudden)

throw0101d 11mo ago
>> I hope that the association makes protectionism politically taboo for decades to come. > That is waaaay too black and white. We're talking about Trump here: of course it's black and white. > Free trade and globalization has failed most of the world in pretty serious ways (though it's been great for the much of the elite, floating on top of big piles of capital). I don't know: extreme poverty has been driven down quite effectively AFAICT: * https://www.gapminder.org/questions/gms1-3/ https://www.gapminder.org/questions/gms1-3/ * https://www.gapminder.org/data/documentation/epovrate/ https://www.gapminder.org/data/documentation/epovrate/ * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China Wealth inequality dropped after the Gilded Age and post-WW2 until the 1970s (in the US); nothing said it couldn't have been kept down (say, if Reagan was not elected). There's nothing inherent to free trade and globalization that should lead to it if are willing to redistribution (e.g., through taxation and social programs).
- eru 11mo ago
  > We're talking about Trump here: of course it's black and white. Trump might portrait things that way, but that doesn't mean we need to analyse anything involving him that way. > Wealth inequality dropped after the Gilded Age and post-WW2 until the 1970s (in the US); [...] Well, if you take on a more global perspective: global inequality absolutely skyrocketed until the 1970s and has only gradually been climbing down since then. Numerically, the biggest contributor was Mao strangling the Chinese economy (and people) until his death, and then Deng Xiaoping took over and relaxed the grip around their throats. But outsourcing and container shipping and lower tariffs helped a lot, too. Not just in relation with China, but for everyone on the globe. I'm sick of portraying the era until the 1970s as some kind of golden age. It was the nadir for most people on the globe in terms of equality, not the zenith.
  - throw0101d 11mo ago
    > Well, if you take on a more global perspective: global inequality absolutely skyrocketed until the 1970s and has only gradually been climbing down since then. Probably because pre-WW2 and globalization most people on the planet were equally poor. > I'm sick of portraying the era until the 1970s as some kind of golden age. It was the nadir for most people on the globe in terms of equality, not the zenith. The 1970s were mostly the zenith of recent technological advancement: certainly personal computing and the Internet came after, but there really hasn't been any major invention. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_American_Growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_American_... Post-1970s technology has become more equally distributed (à la Gibson), and that has been through globalization.
leosanchez 11mo ago
> Free trade and globalization has failed most of the world in pretty serious ways (though it's been great for the much of the elite, floating on top of big piles of capital). Globalization benefits capital in rich countries and labor in poor countries. As someone who is from a poor and corrupt country, I have seen many people around me come out of poverty due to globalization. I can agree that globalization can be bad for labor in rich countries. Edit: Ironically your comment is also waaaay too black and white.
- petcat 11mo ago
  > I have seen many people around me come out of poverty due to globalization. This is definitely true and Phil Knight of Nike fame even said that without the opportunity to join his slave workforce in Vietnam, those people would be worse off.
  - leosanchez 11mo ago
    > without the opportunity to join his slave workforce in Vietnam, those people would be worse off. I am not sure if you are being sarcastic here. But without Amazon many people in my country will be worse off, however bad the working conditions maybe.
    - petcat 11mo ago
      Yes it is tongue-in-cheek. I know it's a good proposition for the poor people of that country. But it is pretty widely viewed as exploitative through a wider world lens.
      - leosanchez 11mo ago
        > But it is pretty widely viewed as exploitative through a wider world lens. If so, I hope we get exploited even more :)
      - shadowgovt 11mo ago
        I remember Planet Money doing a pretty good story on this where they spoke with sweatshop workers in Bangladesh. Relative to the labor wage of employees in the US, they were earning absolute pennies. Relative to the places they came from? They doubled their income and were functionally free from concerns about things like famine and infected drinkable water. Exploitation of labor is a complicated topic (and really, the meta-fight is, as is so often the case, not between nations; it's between labor and capital. Offshoring is just another form of scabbing, but the world is not yet small enough that one should expect a fresh-off-the-farm factory worker who just had their prospects opened up to join a global strike because people in the US want to make $15/hr). (Related: As is so often the case, if you want things better for your folks back home, lift everyone out of poverty and make everyone safe. People are less likley to take "slave-wage" jobs if the alternative is not subsistence and high risk of unpredictable outcome due to localized supply disruption, disease outbreak, or war).

throw0101d 11mo ago

>> I hope that the association makes protectionism politically taboo for decades to come. > That is waaaay too black and white. We're talking about Trump here: of course it's black and white. > Free trade and globalization has failed most of the world in pretty serious ways (though it's been great for the much of the elite, floating on top of big piles of capital). I don't know: extreme poverty has been driven down quite effectively AFAICT: * https://www.gapminder.org/questions/gms1-3/ https://www.gapminder.org/questions/gms1-3/ * https://www.gapminder.org/data/documentation/epovrate/ https://www.gapminder.org/data/documentation/epovrate/ * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China Wealth inequality dropped after the Gilded Age and post-WW2 until the 1970s (in the US); nothing said it couldn't have been kept down (say, if Reagan was not elected). There's nothing inherent to free trade and globalization that should lead to it if are willing to redistribution (e.g., through taxation and social programs).

eru 11mo ago
> We're talking about Trump here: of course it's black and white. Trump might portrait things that way, but that doesn't mean we need to analyse anything involving him that way. > Wealth inequality dropped after the Gilded Age and post-WW2 until the 1970s (in the US); [...] Well, if you take on a more global perspective: global inequality absolutely skyrocketed until the 1970s and has only gradually been climbing down since then. Numerically, the biggest contributor was Mao strangling the Chinese economy (and people) until his death, and then Deng Xiaoping took over and relaxed the grip around their throats. But outsourcing and container shipping and lower tariffs helped a lot, too. Not just in relation with China, but for everyone on the globe. I'm sick of portraying the era until the 1970s as some kind of golden age. It was the nadir for most people on the globe in terms of equality, not the zenith.
- throw0101d 11mo ago
  > Well, if you take on a more global perspective: global inequality absolutely skyrocketed until the 1970s and has only gradually been climbing down since then. Probably because pre-WW2 and globalization most people on the planet were equally poor. > I'm sick of portraying the era until the 1970s as some kind of golden age. It was the nadir for most people on the globe in terms of equality, not the zenith. The 1970s were mostly the zenith of recent technological advancement: certainly personal computing and the Internet came after, but there really hasn't been any major invention. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_American_Growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_American_... Post-1970s technology has become more equally distributed (à la Gibson), and that has been through globalization.

leosanchez 11mo ago

> Free trade and globalization has failed most of the world in pretty serious ways (though it's been great for the much of the elite, floating on top of big piles of capital). Globalization benefits capital in rich countries and labor in poor countries. As someone who is from a poor and corrupt country, I have seen many people around me come out of poverty due to globalization. I can agree that globalization can be bad for labor in rich countries. Edit: Ironically your comment is also waaaay too black and white.

petcat 11mo ago
> I have seen many people around me come out of poverty due to globalization. This is definitely true and Phil Knight of Nike fame even said that without the opportunity to join his slave workforce in Vietnam, those people would be worse off.
- leosanchez 11mo ago
  > without the opportunity to join his slave workforce in Vietnam, those people would be worse off. I am not sure if you are being sarcastic here. But without Amazon many people in my country will be worse off, however bad the working conditions maybe.
  - petcat 11mo ago
    Yes it is tongue-in-cheek. I know it's a good proposition for the poor people of that country. But it is pretty widely viewed as exploitative through a wider world lens.
    - leosanchez 11mo ago
      > But it is pretty widely viewed as exploitative through a wider world lens. If so, I hope we get exploited even more :)
    - shadowgovt 11mo ago
      I remember Planet Money doing a pretty good story on this where they spoke with sweatshop workers in Bangladesh. Relative to the labor wage of employees in the US, they were earning absolute pennies. Relative to the places they came from? They doubled their income and were functionally free from concerns about things like famine and infected drinkable water. Exploitation of labor is a complicated topic (and really, the meta-fight is, as is so often the case, not between nations; it's between labor and capital. Offshoring is just another form of scabbing, but the world is not yet small enough that one should expect a fresh-off-the-farm factory worker who just had their prospects opened up to join a global strike because people in the US want to make $15/hr). (Related: As is so often the case, if you want things better for your folks back home, lift everyone out of poverty and make everyone safe. People are less likley to take "slave-wage" jobs if the alternative is not subsistence and high risk of unpredictable outcome due to localized supply disruption, disease outbreak, or war).