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

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#131

Post by smpetrey » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 5:48 PM UTC

clavalle wrote: post #84

Brakenshire wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't agree with Trump on much but I do agree that relying upon the market to fix all ills hasn't worked. We need to flex the economic muscle we have and tie trade to political reforms or find a way to bypass the powers that be and pull up the people directly. Otherwise, we are stuck in a race to the bottom. Yes, you have to have some common standards which undercut a race to the bottom, otherwise countries will…

Fair points. I don't know what Trump's actual policy is when it comes to trade deals I was making (bad) assumptions on the fact that he backed out of or signaled backing out of some trade deals that relied too much on market forces doing the reform work for us.

Trump (err well, The Whitehouse and his staff) don't have a policy on trade deals at the moment officially.

But the GOP do. Some notables include:

"International trade is crucial for our economy." [1]

"Negotiate reductions in tariffs on U.S. industrial goods and the elimination of other trade barriers so that our autos, heavy machinery, textiles, and other products will no longer be shut out of foreign markets." [2]

"Advance a Free Trade Area of the Americas to take advantage of burgeoning new markets at our doorstep." [3]

Interesting to see how GOP ideals are forced to evolve at the helm of a madman president because the quoted text above around a decade old.

[1] http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Republican_Party_Free_Trade... [2][3] Ibid.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#132

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 5:48 PM UTC

manyoso wrote: post #117

throwanem wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is much easier to accomplish - perhaps only even possible to accomplish - when the hoi polloi don't see any meaningful prospect of worthwhile change from the only other party that can get a candidate elected. As I find myself reiterating every time the subject arises here - it's not possible accurately to understand Trump's electoral victory without reference to the DNC's own internal politics and their gravely…

This is the argument that Trump voters knew he was likely a con, but at least he was paying lip service. This is belied by the continued support since when he has done the exact opposite of what he said. He's revealed himself to be that con and yet his voters still enthusiastically support him. No, Occam's razor: this is just tribalism. He's convinced them that he is on their side reality be damned. It is too painful…

> This is the argument that Trump voters knew he was likely a con, but at least he was paying lip service. This is belied by the continued support since when he has done the exact opposite of what he said.

“Continued support”? No, Trump's seen a significant decline in support since taking office.

> He's revealed himself to be that con and yet his voters still enthusiastically support him.

No, again, in fact, the decline in his strong support in polling has been more rapid than the decline in his overall support.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#133

Post by ashark » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 5:50 PM UTC

grondilu wrote: post #95

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 socie…

> 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.

The point is that the system shifted to "give" some people more, and "give" others less. The winners in these cases were, by and large, already better off than the losers, with the result that political power also shifted (further) in the winners' favor (this is all covered in the linked paper).

The economic system we collectively create absolutely "gives" and "takes" from different groups, all the time. The notion that it's fine for one group to shift the rules to help themselves and harm others, but it's not fine for the harmed to try to retaliate (even via a voting-driven "revolt") is silly.

Letting this go on will, right or wrong, definitely create more crime and, taken far enough and especially coupled by political power shifting toward economic beneficiaries, reliably create political violence (see: relative deprivation). You can be personally offended over how these people aren't "responsible adults" and take an expensive, weakly effective law-and-order approach, or you can try to do effective (even just from a not-unreasonable point of view!) things like redistribute part of the gains that some people receive from changing economic policy to those who are harmed by the same policy, through direct transfers or e.g. retraining programs, even if it offends your derived-from-first-principles sense of right and wrong that labels this as theft or something.

Of course, if (taking a shot in the dark here) your view is that most of what's complex about economic policy (as e.g. the topics essential to the analysis in the linked paper) is accidental ("artificial", perhaps?) rather than essential ("natural"...) this will all come off as nonsense, I suppose.

> 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?

So no. That's not remotely the only sensible thing to do.

[EDIT] punctuation

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#134

Post by Mikeb85 » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 5:51 PM UTC

Swizec wrote: post #115

Mikeb85 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you were lucky (to be smart enough) to out-compete your peers and a bunch of Americans. By definition not everyone can achieve this success (as it's based on competition), so it does nothing to alleviate inequality on a scale that matters.

> So you were lucky (to be smart enough) Sure didn't feel lucky when I was a troubled youth who failed most of his classes in high school and floundered around in college, ultimately not graduating. I guess one thing I did have that my American peers do not, is access to high quality free education and a cultural expectation that it's okay to be a student into your late 20s. I really lucked out on that one. That is t…

For the record, I have no doubt you worked very hard and that you deserve all the success you have.

I was only stating that it's impossible for all 7 billion people in the world to do what you did. The 'system' has its limits.

There's a reason why in statistics you throw away outliers...

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#135

Post by geodel » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 5:51 PM UTC

basisword wrote: post #104

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…

>> 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 to get $10k more per year. Today I would say, getting an extra year at $30k is enough to justify the burnings. I wouldn't generalise like that. There are a lot of lower earners who can also think big picture and the…

Since low income earners are 1-2 order of magnitude more than high income earners. There can be lot of both variety (peaceful vs angry mob) and it will still lead very troubled times ahead.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#136

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 5:52 PM UTC

manyoso wrote: post #117

throwanem wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is much easier to accomplish - perhaps only even possible to accomplish - when the hoi polloi don't see any meaningful prospect of worthwhile change from the only other party that can get a candidate elected. As I find myself reiterating every time the subject arises here - it's not possible accurately to understand Trump's electoral victory without reference to the DNC's own internal politics and their gravely…

This is the argument that Trump voters knew he was likely a con, but at least he was paying lip service. This is belied by the continued support since when he has done the exact opposite of what he said. He's revealed himself to be that con and yet his voters still enthusiastically support him. No, Occam's razor: this is just tribalism. He's convinced them that he is on their side reality be damned. It is too painful…

[deleted]

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#137

Post by ajmurmann » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 5:53 PM UTC

api wrote: post #64

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…

I've started thinking of it this way: "It's better to reign in hell." Poverty is worse than most natural disasters and worse than most of the predicted consequences of climate change. I'm willing to bet that the infant mortality rate in Miami is lower during a category five hurricane than it is in a crushingly poor society in perfect weather. People will burn the world to escape poverty. It's better to reign in hell.…

I'm not sure if it's not understanding poverty or actively not caring. The US is do divided that I think the sympathy level between the "elites" and "real America" might be so low that many actually care more about Manta Rays going extinct than people in there middle of the country having a life worth living. Who doesn't prefer seeing a Manta Ray over losing an election?

I feel this might be the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about. We need to address this very badly.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#138

Post by harryh » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 5:54 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #33

Swizec wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I for one support globalization because it's how me and all my friends escaped the fate of our parents. Working all your life for $20k/year in a tiny little country in Europe. Without globalization we'd all be fucked. If we could get skills and jobs that rival Bay Area or are in Bay Area from half the world away, why can't someone from Atlanta? What's stopping them? What, realistically, are the missinh opportunities…

Globalization unlocks the potential of top 5% types stuck in underdeveloped countries. At the same time, it often undermines the prosperity of bottom 2/3 types born in wealthy countries. As a matter of democratic theory, however, the political establishment's duty is to the majority of the populace in their own country, not to untapped potential in other countries.

Given the massive increases in living standards in Asia we have seen in the last 20-30 years I think that globalization has unlocked the potential of far more than 5% of the population of underdeveloped countries.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#139

Post by cscurmudgeon » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 5:54 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #113

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ethically and pragmatically, that is a fantastic idea. Maybe countries should all be walled up. Google should work only in the US and there should not be any exports or imports. Of course, colonialism did not bring any advantages to the West or cause bad things in Asia or Africa.

It's not a matter of having more or less foreign intercourse. It's what is the guiding policy behind those policy decisions? In a democracy, the guiding policy typically should be "this policy will make the majority of Americans better off," not "this policy is dictated by economic theory," or "this policy is the right/compassionate thing to do."

The thing is if what is good for people in the short term is not what is good for people in the long term, politicians will do the former.

In a democracy, the guiding policy should be "this policy will make the majority of Americans better off in the long term"

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#140

Post by lettergram » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 5:54 PM UTC

pillowkusis wrote: post #111

lettergram wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole idea of a "black swan" is bullshit in my opinion. In his book, nearly all events were predictable if the right people were consulted, research was done, or if people even looked at data. The problem, is the mainstream media, and even educated researchers miss the mark regularly. To me it appears most poeple assume they know better or listening to the wrong experts. That's actually the whole reason I created…

Sentiment analysis based on media is going to make you even more vulnerable to black swans. Black swans come from our collective blind spot -- if the media is reporting it (with a correct sentiment), it's by definition not on our blind spot.

Who said we were doing sentiment analysis on the media?

That's decidedly not what we're doing ;)