Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#51

Post by hkajshdf67 » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 5:00 PM UTC

candiodari wrote: post #6

It is too easy to forget that when a person is employed at $100k-$200k per year in the Bay Area, you want things like stopping climate change, more parks, more air, fair treatment, and above all, peace and prosperity. When making $30k with absolutely zero hope of real increases in Atlanta being a warehouse worker for an industry that's disappearing, the same person would burn all those things down, I would have said…

"Globalism produces beautiful iPads."

That should read something more like "Our implementation of globalism, heavily curated to favor elite special interests, produces beautiful iPads."

There's nothing inherent to globalism that requires it produce beautiful iPads.

Beautiful iPads are more the result of purposefully crafted laws and policies, at the behest of special interests, for the purpose of growing their pile of coconuts faster than the rest of us can.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#52

Post by whazor » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 5:00 PM UTC

candiodari wrote: post #6

It is too easy to forget that when a person is employed at $100k-$200k per year in the Bay Area, you want things like stopping climate change, more parks, more air, fair treatment, and above all, peace and prosperity. When making $30k with absolutely zero hope of real increases in Atlanta being a warehouse worker for an industry that's disappearing, the same person would burn all those things down, I would have said…

Good news is that outside of countries like USA and UK, there is a lot of improvement. Global average income is rising, more people are going to schools, and people are being connected to the internet. I wouldn't be surprised if there will be a huge rise in the amount of African software developers. They could compete with USA software companies in the global internet industry.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#53

Post by frgtpsswrdlame » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 5:01 PM UTC

rainhacker wrote: post #44

candiodari wrote: post #6

It is too easy to forget that when a person is employed at $100k-$200k per year in the Bay Area, you want things like stopping climate change, more parks, more air, fair treatment, and above all, peace and prosperity. When making $30k with absolutely zero hope of real increases in Atlanta being a warehouse worker for an industry that's disappearing, the same person would burn all those things down, I would have said…

> global average wage is $2k ... not per month. Per year How much was it before Globalization ?

I think the point is, who cares? Globalization is trying to reach an equilibrium where our first world workers and those third world workers will earn the same wage. That's a terrifying proposition to anyone in the bottom three quarters of the US economy.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#54

Post by jmull » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 5:01 PM UTC

Hm... I guess I would have a lot more respect for this author's claim about the predictability of the rise of populism if she(?) has predicted it.

Perhaps she did, but this paper is dated this month.

Not to mention, prediction by itself isn't worth much. Seeing it coming isn't too useful if you can't do something to change course. And being able to change course isn't useful if you can't find a better alternative to change course to.

Globalization didn't arise out of policy decisions. It was a natural consequence of improvements in information technology and transportation technology (exponential in the case of IT). China isn't some distant land. It's our next door neighbor and has a view straight into our living room. Policy can guide or mitigate globalization, but it can't stop it. You would have to roll back the changes in information and transportation to roll globalization back and that might be worse than the cure.

IMO, we should be focusing on policy that will prevent the benefits of globalization accruing only to people at the top, and not on stopping globalization.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#55

Post by ajmurmann » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 5:01 PM UTC

candiodari wrote: post #6

It is too easy to forget that when a person is employed at $100k-$200k per year in the Bay Area, you want things like stopping climate change, more parks, more air, fair treatment, and above all, peace and prosperity. When making $30k with absolutely zero hope of real increases in Atlanta being a warehouse worker for an industry that's disappearing, the same person would burn all those things down, I would have said…

Reducing globalization reduces the size of the pie. The issue seems to be that we are distributing the pie too unevenly. Maybe we can fix that without shrinking the pie? It's true to many the economy feels like a zero sum have and that's how we get protectionism and xenophobia. Can we make everyone feel like they were benefiting from the pie growing without destroying the pie?

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#56

Post by refurb » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 5:02 PM UTC

ferentchak wrote: post #18

perfmode wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Racism and poverty are related.

Agreed. If we address poverty it will remove most racism. Most racism is classism in disguise. Heck, most people confuse the two when they are being discussed. //edited to remove an extra 'in'.

Asian Americans have a higher per capita income than whites. Does that mean Asians are no longer discriminated against?

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#57

Post by rayiner » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 5:02 PM UTC

hkajshdf67 wrote: post #51

candiodari wrote: post #6

It is too easy to forget that when a person is employed at $100k-$200k per year in the Bay Area, you want things like stopping climate change, more parks, more air, fair treatment, and above all, peace and prosperity. When making $30k with absolutely zero hope of real increases in Atlanta being a warehouse worker for an industry that's disappearing, the same person would burn all those things down, I would have said…

"Globalism produces beautiful iPads." That should read something more like "Our implementation of globalism, heavily curated to favor elite special interests, produces beautiful iPads." There's nothing inherent to globalism that requires it produce beautiful iPads. Beautiful iPads are more the result of purposefully crafted laws and policies, at the behest of special interests, for the purpose of growing their pile o…

Such as?

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#58

Post by hkajshdf67 » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 5:03 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #57

hkajshdf67 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Globalism produces beautiful iPads." That should read something more like "Our implementation of globalism, heavily curated to favor elite special interests, produces beautiful iPads." There's nothing inherent to globalism that requires it produce beautiful iPads. Beautiful iPads are more the result of purposefully crafted laws and policies, at the behest of special interests, for the purpose of growing their pile o…

Such as?

Which laws and policies? Assuming that's what you mean, it basically starts, in America, with the Constitution, which originally only allowed white male landowners a vote.

Humans got together in a room and decided, based upon their knowledge and experience and opinions, who should be allowed to vote and who shouldn't. The Senate is basically doing that right now with healthcare; deciding in private who should have a say in what healthcare looks like. There's no subterfuge to any of it. It's all right there in our faces.

Read the letters and writings of the Founder Fathers. James Madison in particular made it clear he felt that the new government should protect the rich from the poor.

It leads directly into what we're seeing today. The poor shouldn't have healthcare or a living wage if the rich have to pay for it.

Humans with certain ideas placed in their minds go into a room and craft policy with those ideas in mind.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#59

Post by pillowkusis » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 5:03 PM UTC

DINKDINK wrote: post #31

pillowkusis wrote: post #2

I don't like the use of the word "predictable". I would qualify this populist uprising as a Black Swan[0], and as Taleb describes in his book, one of the common reactions to a black swan is to rationalize it's obvious predictability after the fact. Were there logical reasons to believe this populist uprising would occur? Of course (and this paper does a good job exploring them). Was it predictable? I don't know. By a…

I agree that we should doubt that the populism was predictable. Ex-post many people claim things could have been predictable but I would argue against this political movement as a Black Swan. The main point in Taleb's book is that Black Swans are /critically/ a result of inductive reasoning. Black Swans events are called such because black swans used to be a mythic creature that people would refer to because they had…

Yeah, great point about the inductive reasoning. I haven't thought about that aspect too much, although I guess I would call this line of reasoning inductive:

"this globalization sure is impacting people's livelihoods, and causing major economic shifts. Maybe we should slow down."

"it will definitely raise GDP. Rising GDP has always led to rising standard of living. We'll be fine."

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#60

Post by thecolorblue » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 5:03 PM UTC

pillowkusis wrote: post #2

I don't like the use of the word "predictable". I would qualify this populist uprising as a Black Swan[0], and as Taleb describes in his book, one of the common reactions to a black swan is to rationalize it's obvious predictability after the fact. Were there logical reasons to believe this populist uprising would occur? Of course (and this paper does a good job exploring them). Was it predictable? I don't know. By a…

Agreed.

The only things that could have been predicted are that globalization would have repercussions and that the losers in globalization would have interest in disrupting the winners. The same could be said of the next 20 years.