3 ms·

free trade has proven to be not good for the bulk of the public. Most HN commenters, having been immersed in right-wing economics, have the belief that it is so

free trade has proven to be not good for the bulk of the public. Most HN commenters, having been immersed in right-wing economics, have the belief that it is somehow scientifically proven that free trade is beneficial for all, but that's not actually what the science says. The results of decades of "free trade" agreements have been to overrule local decision-making; they are profoundly anti-democratic. They've resulted in a massive transfer of wealth from the bulk of the population to a very few, very wealthy individuals. Free trade agreements are a substantial cause for the fact that most workers in the United States are making less money now than they were 30 years ago, even though their productivity has gone up massively in the meantime. I am not taking a position, but I think the not-altogether-ridiculous evidence they have for is the fact that global poverty has been declining steadily[1]. This is tied to the idea that efficiency increases provided by globalization are always a plus. Inequality may have deepened, but the argument is that that is irrelevant if the lowest standard of living rises. Not my argument, just saying. Of course, I suppose one could argue that poverty would have reduced even more had globalization not happened, but I wouldn't know where to begin to do that. I would welcome someone who can. [1] http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2013/04/17/remarkable-declines-in-global-poverty-but-major-challenges-remain http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2013/04/17/re... Edit: Now that I am reading how they define "poverty" (<$1.25/day), and considering the fact more can be lost or gained than just money, I am getting suspicious...

kbenson 13y ago
> This is tied to the idea that efficiency increases provided by globalization are always a plus. Inequality may have deepened, but the argument is that that is irrelevant if the lowest standard of living rises. I have to wonder that even if this is true, whether that means it's true for all conditions. That is, the cost of inequality may at some point equal, then surpass the cost of poverty, either from poverty decreasing or inequality increasing. That could either be a gradual change, or a fairly abrupt one, as people that have amassed massive wealth and power make use of it to change the system to their benefit (and would most people recognize this until it was long done?).

kbenson 13y ago

> This is tied to the idea that efficiency increases provided by globalization are always a plus. Inequality may have deepened, but the argument is that that is irrelevant if the lowest standard of living rises. I have to wonder that even if this is true, whether that means it's true for all conditions. That is, the cost of inequality may at some point equal, then surpass the cost of poverty, either from poverty decreasing or inequality increasing. That could either be a gradual change, or a fairly abrupt one, as people that have amassed massive wealth and power make use of it to change the system to their benefit (and would most people recognize this until it was long done?).