Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

drodrik.scholar.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 221 posts

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#91

Post by elihu »

rayiner wrote: post #15

The discussion on 4-9 is worth looking at. Among policymakers on both sides of the aisle, there is this reflexive recitation that trade increases economic efficiency. While that's true, that assumes the purpose of national policy is to increase economic efficiency. To the contrary, the mandate of politicians in a Democracy is to improve the welfare of the majority of voters. Likewise, the discussion on 13-15 is impor…

It's also important to consider that reducing or eliminating tariffs is effectively a tax cut for large corporations. Whether trade increases economic efficiency is kind of beside the point, even if we were to agree that economic efficiency is something that national policy ought to attempt to increase.

Eliminating income tax would probably increase economic efficiency as well, but we don't do it because the money to pay for government operation and services needs to come from somewhere.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#92

Post by smallnamespace »

ajmurmann wrote: post #55
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?

The problem is that to redistribute the pie, you need a strong state that is able to fairly tax the rich. Right now it is trivial for the rich to avoid taxation by shifting their liquid wealth from place to place, and putting states in a race to the bottom on taxes for their more productive assets. That's why in order to build a factory, localities fall over one another to offer the most tax credits, and the owner ends up with zero taxes for a decade.

Ironically, the cure to one of globalization's ills is a strong centralized world government. Good luck ever getting that taken seriously though.

Europe's experience during the crisis shows that economic integration (mobility of capital, labor, and goods) without political integration is a recipe for disaster. Guess what? That describes the current world economy very well.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#93

Post by throwawaymanbot »

maxxxxx wrote: post #79
manyoso wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me the real story here is that despite the ascendance of right wing populism the GOP in D.C. is doing the exact same thing it has always done : tax cuts for the rich while shrinking services for the rest. That and deregulating wall street. Sure, the GOP in D.C. doesn't give two pennies about climate change, more parks, more air, fair treatment, or the rest, but they also are doing nothing different that will subs…

That's the genius of the GOP. They can motivate the working class while pretty much every policy they make is against the working class.

Not Genius, but kind of a cool but disgusting trick. And Karma is natures greatest boomerang.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#94

Post by manyoso »

maxxxxx wrote: post #79
manyoso wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me the real story here is that despite the ascendance of right wing populism the GOP in D.C. is doing the exact same thing it has always done : tax cuts for the rich while shrinking services for the rest. That and deregulating wall street. Sure, the GOP in D.C. doesn't give two pennies about climate change, more parks, more air, fair treatment, or the rest, but they also are doing nothing different that will subs…

That's the genius of the GOP. They can motivate the working class while pretty much every policy they make is against the working class.

And when the hoi polloi start to catch on they just dangle some more red meat identity politics at them.

"No, it isn't us, it is all the other people who are taking your American Dream away!"

When you think about it, isn't it remarkable how well this works that a rich billionaire blowhard from New York City convinces the hoi polloi that he is one of them?

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#95

Post by grondilu »

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…

> If you can't give people a decent living first, they will revolt

Nobody is supposed to "give them" anything. They are supposed to be responsible adults, and as such they are supposed to earn their living themselves.

If for some reason they can not be satisfied with what they earn, and if they react by "revolting", that is with violence, then unfortunately the only sensible thing to do is to defend the rest of society against them. Poverty is not an excuse for crime, is it?

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#96

Post by geodel »

candiodari wrote: post #36
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 would argue quite the opposite. It's not a Black Swan at all. It's an entirely predictable outcome that is caused by the incentives of large groups of people. E.g. when people say "software is eating the world", that really means software engineers, like most people reading this site, are taking away the means of existence of hundreds millions of people. In the US, but much more so outside of the US. Can you really…

You have made very relevant arguments. I have same opinion about happening in my country (India) where middle class by media is defined as top 5-8% of population. Anyone lower survive on most basic food and housing. But with onslaught on low end tech jobs even the sector which mostly benefited from globalization is going to get crushed there. We are indeed heading toward turbulent times in most of the world.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#97

Post by throwawaymanbot »

perfmode wrote: post #10
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…

Racism and poverty are related.

Theres plenty of rich old white guys. They only vote GOP. Racist is an uncouth word to use in their opinion. But a spade is a spade! They are 100% Racist. (Small R however)

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#98

Post by JoeAltmaier »

ragequitregrets wrote: post #87
refurb wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is this under the assumption that whites aren't discriminated against? Because ooooooweeee is that a invalid assumption. Especially in this day and age. I feel as if I'm not allowed to talk anymore because my white male view is suppressing the minorities. And I'm not joking or being snarky, I've been made to feel this way through several racist (towards white people GASP!) remarks.

'Remarks' is not the same as 'discrimination', just saying.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#99

Post by [deleted] »

ragequitregrets wrote: post #87
refurb wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is this under the assumption that whites aren't discriminated against? Because ooooooweeee is that a invalid assumption. Especially in this day and age. I feel as if I'm not allowed to talk anymore because my white male view is suppressing the minorities. And I'm not joking or being snarky, I've been made to feel this way through several racist (towards white people GASP!) remarks.

[deleted]

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#100

Post by Maarten88 »

candiodari wrote: post #23
justicezyx wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree 100% No matter how many ways to justify, the wealth and power enjoyed by a few are simply irrational. Edit: the wording is difficult, but all replies below have the same idea. Or I should rephrase it to: the absurdity of the wealth and power enjoyed by people grows exponentially with their rank in the social ladder. The ideal probably should quadratically.

You do realize that while the 1% doesn't include all IT workers in the bay area, the 2% does (I believe 1.6% is 100k per year before tax). It's easy to complain about the 1%, but most people on this site ... are the 1%. Median household income in the US is $55,775. That means, about half of all US households have less than that. [1] By and large, it's not the wealth enjoyed by the few. It's the comfortable, but proba…

I often complain about the inequality and the privileged treatment of the 1%, all while being part of that 1% myself.

My political viewpoints do not align with my own short term interests, but I believe they do align with the long term interests of society and the interests of my children.

Post reply on HN