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

151–160 of 221 posts

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#151

Post by throwanem »

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…

No more than easy contempt is an excuse for refusing honest and charitable engagement.

The argument isn't that the world, or the government, owes working-class people a living. The argument is that a government whose policies increasingly preclude the working class even a fair shot at earning a living is a government which fails its responsibility to those whom it rules - and, moreover, sows the seeds of its own downfall in so doing, which latter contention I should think no one with even a cursory grasp of history can find controversial.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#152

Post by rayiner »

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.

That's certainly true. I was thinking more in terms of globalization/immigration (in light of OP's anecdote).

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#153

Post by zghst »

clavalle wrote: post #35

The trouble with economic globalization is that we assumed that markets work and work well all over the world. That there would be an inevitable stable middle class built from the sheer power of market forces. It turns out that those in power around the world have every incentive to keep the gains to themselves and keep their population desperate -- desperate people have to weigh their economic decisions against thei…

Even if those entrenched in power are more benevolent in economy and access, they still control the game, forming an addicted consumer dedicated to spreading their decadent cause around the world. In a game now where the most vociferous and powerful voices do everything to increase tribute to faceless gods, tearing down any dissenting man in their wake, does anyone ever think of the end game beyond new "enlighten", well-fed consumers?

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#154

Post by programmarchy »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #101
rubicon33 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At what point do we reward human accomplishment instead of throwing it all away to "luck"? I hear this all too often nowadays that any kind of success can always be attributed to luck and therefor you have a moral obligation to those less "lucky" than you. Don't get me wrong - I agree with the moral obligation to help those less lucky than you. I don't always agree with the looseness in which the word "luck" is appli…

> It discounts his hard work to say it all came down to lucky brain genetics. How many people work hard their entire life only to not be rewarded? It's not like everyone who doesn't see success is lazy or doesn't work hard. Labourers work hard, tradesmen work hard, and yes, programmers work hard too. I live in Alberta right now, which is in the midst of an economic recession/depression. In my city unemployment is at…

> Poverty begets crime

Does it, or is it the other way around?

Crime in an area will cause businesses and capable people to leave, which causes an area to become poor. I'd concede that it may be a two way street, but also think it's worth considering how that cycle works in both directions.

There have been many studies in criminology that strongly link crime and IQ. This is an unpopular viewpoint, because IQ is primarily genetic and seemingly fixed at birth.

However, if it is true then it would explain why our current approaches of throwing money at the problem aren't working (e.g. welfare, increased spending in education).

And in that case, instead of doubling down on failing policies, we need to think of new ways to address the issues at a genetic level.

For example, what if instead of increasing welfare, the government subsidized IVF, allowing poor people to select embryos with genetic markers for high IQ or without markers for disease like diabetes or sickle cell anemia? Perhaps a tough sell, and maybe there are better ways.

But I think we need to move beyond the reasoning that all our problems are socioeconomic, and start looking at the full picture which requires us to accept some unsettling evidence about biology, race, and IQ.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#155

Post by haltingthoughts »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #119
haltingthoughts wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sure that globalism has contributed nothing to the development of poor countries? The number of people in poverty has decreased drastically over the past half century. Do you have any other candidates other than trade liberalization? https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty/

That's a terrible definition of extreme poverty. Also, inequality matters. It's nice that the crumbs poor people receive are getting bigger, but things like social unrest, wars, revolutions, crime, famine are due to inequality and unequal distribution of resources. Being poor isn't a problem by itself, it's the other things that come with it which are a problem. Having cell phones and making more than $1.90 per day d…

How is that a terrible definition? What do you propose?

What metric do you want? Infant mortality? Life expectancy? Subjective happiness? Unrest? Hunger? Global inequality? All of them are drastically down globally.

Within country inequity? Flat.

https://ourworldindata.org/happiness-and-life-satisfaction/ https://ourworldindata.org/income-inequality/

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#156

Post by zghst »

harryh wrote: post #147
zghst wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So you're saying thousands of years of societies all over the world, uninterrupted by Western intervention, were all useless until their coming payday by benevolent overlords?

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#157

Post by ashark »

mozumder wrote: post #82
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…

The people against globalization aren't the poor making $30k/year. It's the middle-class making $80k-$100k/year doing routine work. Globalization does disproportionately affects the poor the most, but the poor still end up voting for globalist neoliberal Democrats because they offer social services that solve much of the economic disparity problem that globalization creates, such as food stamps, universal health care…

> Ultimately globalization is a must, as it just increases efficiency and cuts prices.

Unless I'm misreading the paper, one of its points is that lowering trade barriers has sharply diminishing returns-relative-to-harm, i.e. cutting a 10% tariff to 5% has a much better benefit-to-harm ratio than cutting a 5% tariff to 0%, and the effect is strong enough that at some point and by some accountings it may be more costly than it is enriching, to the state as a whole. So commitment to total destruction of trade barriers may not be the best policy, absent serious global-political-system shakeups (say, the dreaded one-world-government) to accompany it.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#158

Post by anigbrowl »

dragonwriter wrote: post #116
maxxxxx wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. That's kind of been easier since 1992, since Third Wayism means the Democrats at the Presidential level (which gets outsized media attention and often shapes perception of downballot races) and often (though less consistently) at lower levels aren't even trying to offer a credible…

I somewhat agree that let's not forget that third-wayism was a response by the Democrats to being locked out of executive power at the federal level for the previous 12 years, or all but 4 of the previous 24 years if you want to look back to the 1960s. When the choices were 'never get any power again' or 'accept the dominance of market economics and try to operate within that framework' it's hard to blame them for choosing the latter. Socialism and communism as political/economic philosophies are not an easy sell in the USA.

My memory of the 1992 election is that Clinton managed to exploit general dissatisfaction with a relatively minor recession and conservative disenchantment (and consequent core voter apathy) with Bush's pragmatic decision to hike taxes, along with the split vote on the right created by Ross Perot's candidacy. Out of pragmatism, Clinton tacitly endorsed the dominant tropes of an authoritarian approach to criminal justice and the unwavering commitment to military supremacy that had culminated in the collapse of the USSR, end of the Cold War, and a quick and decisive victory in Iraq that was thought to be end of the Vietnam Syndrome.

Normally you would think that having the USSR collapse and the Berlin Wall be torn down would have propelled Bush into an easy second victory and had him and/or Reagan added to Mount Rushmore as the triumphant receivers of the Communist surrender. I absolutely understand why the progressive left felt betrayed by the Clinton-Carville machine, but as an outside observer I think the notion that the Democrats would have got anywhere with a Eugene Debs style democratic socialist in 1992 (or any of many similar pipe dreams) is delusional. Delusional. Clinton only got in because of the ideological hubris that brought Ross Perot into the race.

Please understand that I'm not casting aspersions on the ideological alternatives to the dominant economic paradigms of the time. I'm saying that there could not have been a credible alternative democratic candidate promoting sensible sustainable policies that supported working-class and other interests because most people are not rational voters. Stupidity and pervisity are facts of sociopolitical life and this isn't something that can be overcome in any single electoral campaign.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#159

Post by Swizec »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #101
rubicon33 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At what point do we reward human accomplishment instead of throwing it all away to "luck"? I hear this all too often nowadays that any kind of success can always be attributed to luck and therefor you have a moral obligation to those less "lucky" than you. Don't get me wrong - I agree with the moral obligation to help those less lucky than you. I don't always agree with the looseness in which the word "luck" is appli…

> It discounts his hard work to say it all came down to lucky brain genetics. How many people work hard their entire life only to not be rewarded? It's not like everyone who doesn't see success is lazy or doesn't work hard. Labourers work hard, tradesmen work hard, and yes, programmers work hard too. I live in Alberta right now, which is in the midst of an economic recession/depression. In my city unemployment is at…

> In my city unemployment is at 10%

We can play that game.

In my country youth unemployment rate (those under 30) is 13.7%. That ignores everyone who is studying until 27 because "they're not in the labor force".

Overall unemployment rate is 9.8%. Again, discounting everyone who is "not in the labor force".

As far as I know, we've been in an economic recession for the past 10 years or so. Before that we were in a "Yeah we're growing but socialism fucked us" stage for some 15 years.

> Poverty begets crime and social unrest

We're one of the safest countries in Europe. I don't know why Americans love to lump crime together with poverty, but that's not how it works in Europe from what I can tell. Or at least in my part of Europe.

Social unrest, yes there's some of that. Demonstrations happen once in a while. Just like they do in the US all the time. That's just part of democracy.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#160

Post by soundwave106 »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #76
Jtsummers wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poor people aren't racist (well, some are, racism knows no class boundaries), but many minorities are in poverty due to racist policies (or their families were pushed into poverty by said policies and the poverty cycle is incredibly hard to break out of, even if the policies have been largely removed or mitigated).

So fix it then. There's this cycle in American politics of simply regurgitating talking points and not fixing problems. And yes, minorities in the US often live in poor neighbourhoods. But there's also a large, poor white working class too. Keep in mind that under Obama, the relative wealth (percent share of aggregate wealth) of minorities and the white working class actually decreased. While I have no doubt racist p…

Ultimately the question is whether US politics can break out of their current tribalism. Agreed that it is not fair to throw around the racism word casually, but it is absolutely worth noting that both parties in the United States have used tribal type tactics (including racial-based appeals) to obtain votes from various groups.

Regarding poverty, the GOP is currently (roughly speaking) an alliance between working class whites and business interests. Economically, the business interest side heavily dominates GOP policy at the moment. As far as poverty reduction goes, if you believe in either government oriented safety net solutions or other collective type structures (eg unions), this current political relationship sticks out like a sore thumb as being very counterproductive towards poverty reduction. Unfortunately, it appears that tribalism triumphs economic policy as a motivating factor at the moment.

I will say an additional thought: With the recent vote in France, I am wondering if the situation is somewhat more dynamic and fluid than this paper lets on. The Netherlands and France were only mentioned in passing, but it seems like the recent result in France actually produced an "anti-establishment" movement that also happened to be "pro-globalization" and "liberal" (in the classic economic sense). This sort of "populism" doesn't seem to be reflected in the paper.

Post reply on HN