Joseph Stiglitz warns of Trans-Pacific Partnership dangers • Hacker News Board

Re: Joseph Stiglitz warns of Trans-Pacific Partnership dangers

#21

Post by Retric » Tue, Oct 06, 2015, 10:50 AM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #16

rightWelll wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you can globalize inequality, such that a transnational set of very powerful oppressors can use cross-border agreements to make the lives of those disenfranchised on both sides of the border equally miserable, skimming the cream of their surplus and absconding with said fruits of labor to parts beyond the reach or purview of those stolen from, while using against them international laws that are difficult to…

I think the unnecessary use of word "oppressors" makes me less likely to think you're unbiased in your assessment. I think the fact that China and India (as well as some African countries) see globalization as a way to emerge from underdeveloped and poor economies speaks to their opinion as to whether globalization is good. Millions of people in India and China are no longer subsistence farmers or beggars because glo…

Exporting oil and mineral weath has supported many wars and dictators in Africa while undercutting farming which further destabilized them. Arguably, a near trade embargo for the last 100+ years would have left them much better off.

PS: #1 thing the developed world could do to end extreme poverty, end food subsidies.

Re: Joseph Stiglitz warns of Trans-Pacific Partnership dangers

#22

Post by mc32 » Tue, Oct 06, 2015, 3:05 PM UTC

bildung wrote: post #18

mc32 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the unnecessary use of word "oppressors" makes me less likely to think you're unbiased in your assessment. I think the fact that China and India (as well as some African countries) see globalization as a way to emerge from underdeveloped and poor economies speaks to their opinion as to whether globalization is good. Millions of people in India and China are no longer subsistence farmers or beggars because glo…

> Yes, it means some people in rich nations will see their income relative tot hat of poor countries stagnate and they won't be able to afford a McMansion or Tesla car and will have to rent an apartment and take transit or own a Honda, but this is ten times better than what people in developing counties have. The stagnating income in the West is a result of policy, not a direct consequence of globalization. Real wage…

Gdp grew, but so did immigration, mostly low skilled, which put price pressure on wages. Mass immigration of low skulled labor will put pressure on native low skills workers. You'd see the same in professions services, if we allowed mass high skills workers immigration.

Re: Joseph Stiglitz warns of Trans-Pacific Partnership dangers

#23

Post by mc32 » Tue, Oct 06, 2015, 3:08 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #21

mc32 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the unnecessary use of word "oppressors" makes me less likely to think you're unbiased in your assessment. I think the fact that China and India (as well as some African countries) see globalization as a way to emerge from underdeveloped and poor economies speaks to their opinion as to whether globalization is good. Millions of people in India and China are no longer subsistence farmers or beggars because glo…

Exporting oil and mineral weath has supported many wars and dictators in Africa while undercutting farming which further destabilized them. Arguably, a near trade embargo for the last 100+ years would have left them much better off. PS: #1 thing the developed world could do to end extreme poverty, end food subsidies.

Mostly control disease and enjoy the benefits of smaller family sizes -stretching resources amongst fewer people means more per capita.

Unfortunately, lots of religious evangelizers told the poor to have more children or opposed population control (contraception) this proved detrimental to the development of the local pop.