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

141–150 of 221 posts

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#141

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

manyoso wrote: post #74
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…

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 because the GOP won the culture war. Sure the dems have civil rights, gay rights, transgender rights, etc. but the GOP has managed to convince most of the US population that success is achieved through wealth, that people with lots of money are good people who deserve what they have, that government is inherently less efficient than business, that markets are good and they get better the less regulation, that liberty = economic freedom, that unions are bad for workers and so on. They've done this so effectively that dems now feel they have to play into it. It's a sad indictment of the lack of any real leftist movement here.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#142

Post by throwanem »

dragonwriter wrote: post #132
manyoso wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 decl…

A lot of it, too, is that regardless of one's private doubts, it's considered preferable to present a united front to a potentially hostile interlocutor. I tend to think that the Republican base is better at this, at least in the last decade or two, than the Democratic; for all the infighting one observes among the GOP establishment, GOP voters tend to back their man pretty firmly, at least in public.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#143

Post by zghst »

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.…

Increasing wealth and standard of living means more consumers, more people not living off of the land. More people taking deals from the US or China, losing their sovereignty and self determination, becoming more politically unstable due to outside intervention, leading to wars, disputes, etc. Poverty is all relative, I seriously consider if our intervention due to naive altruism really helps or hurts the people there.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#144

Post by Mikeb85 »

sjg007 wrote: post #71
dragonwriter wrote: post #41

It wasn't only predictable, but, in the US, its not even new ; it's been a significant, powerful feature of the political landscape and since almost precisely the time the Democratic Party leadership was conquered by the neoliberal/DLC Third Way movement led by Bill Clinton. (Remember H. Ross Perot and the campaign that launched the party under whose banner Donald J. Trump would launch his first Presidential run in 2…

Bernie vs Trump would've been great.

And Bernie would have won. But the Dems shot themselves in the foot by basically ignoring Bernie's voters, and continuing with the status quo. The reason Trump won is because whether or not anyone actually believed he could fix their problems, he was the only candidate left who acknowledged the existence of their problems.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#145

Post by zghst »

harryh wrote: post #138
rayiner wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What is that really compared to? More people have cars and couches? More concrete and trash men cleaning up the streets Were the past lives of people so destitute that we needed to deliver an economic and social epiphany?

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#146

Post by throwanem »

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…

> He's convinced them that he is on their side reality be damned. It is too painful and hopeless to countenance the other.

That sounds less like tribalism than like desperation to me. And in any case, what difference does it make? Either way, it boils down to a stark choice: on the one hand, the Democratic Party may work out how to offer a credible alternative to Trump - more accurately, to whoever comes after Trump, and will no doubt be to Trump as Trump to Bush - and on the other hand, the Democratic Party may watch impotently as events continue more or less as they have done.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#147

Post by harryh »

zghst wrote: post #145
harryh wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What is that really compared to? More people have cars and couches? More concrete and trash men cleaning up the streets Were the past lives of people so destitute that we needed to deliver an economic and social epiphany?

Were the past lives of people so destitute that we needed to deliver an economic and social epiphany

Yes.

Billions of people that were without shelter & adequate food (not to mention health care or any sort of shot at a good education) now have access to such things. That is progress.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#148

Post by dragonwriter »

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.…

> Poverty is worse than most natural disasters and worse than most of the predicted consequences of climate change.

Exacerbation of poverty, both absolutely and relative, is among the predicted consequences of climate change.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#149

Post by zghst »

keeganmccallum wrote: post #123
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.

I think this kind of speaks to the point made in this thread. Human progress is not a zero sum game. People constantly make it seem like you need to be "lucky" or just overall somehow smarter than other people to be able to make a proper living. But if we give everyone opportunity, in the forms of a reasonable standard of living and access to information, that doesn't have to displace others. There are so many direct…

But every culture lives differently, some people see the world that isn't represented in Western society or technologies. Just by introducing our technologies and economy, we bend these people towards our ideals and history, we erase whole languages and people, leaving a shell of economic contributors. These nations may be able to contribute from time to time, but with new immigration policies forming, we will suck up the best and brightest, leaving societies totally reliant on the Western powers for technology and economy.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#150

Post by geodel »

whazor wrote: post #52
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.

Talking about average is again big problem. Because by average measure US GDP is growing, education/healthcare infrastructure is getting better. But the benefits of it are only accruing to top 10% or so.

I see in India income gains are only for top 5-10% of population but those beneficiaries have caused heavy air pollution, traffic woes with their cars, ACs etc. Excessive water shortages and increasing travel times and so on which has caused much more suffering to poor in comparison to benefits which were hogged by IT/ITES and other few sectors.

Post reply on HN