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

181–190 of 221 posts

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#181

Post by PatentTroll »

bobjordan wrote: post #120
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 spent quite some time in my younger years thinking about the logic you've presented here. But the fallacy is presenting that intelligence is wholly dependent on luck. Sure, luck is a factor, but the winners are never going to accept the argument that they won by luck. Further, they are correct. In the general case, life's result depends on decisions. No matter where you start, you have decisions to make. Those deci…

Disagree. There certainly are large genetic and huge environmental factors in raw intelligence, and then a whole raft of environmental and cultural factors in how a person with that intelligence is able to use it. I'm a privileged, intelligent, educated white guy but I have an intellectual appreciation for what it must be like to be born to a poor minority family in a poor area. You will point to some example of some guy who made it out of the third world or the ghetto, but the reason that dude is a story is because he's an extreme outlier. Empathy man.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#182

Post by ashark »

grondilu wrote: post #172
ashark wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. That's a very "class conflict" approach in the Marxist sense. It's not clear this was what was argued in the post…

> That's a very "class conflict" approach in the Marxist sense. It's not clear this was what was argued in the post I was answering to.

The topic under discussion is the changing of economic rules to benefit some at the expense of others. It's the heart of the linked paper (TFA), and may be assumed as context for a root-level comment's assertions.

> In any case, that analysis is obviously highly political, and the least that can be said is that not everybody agrees with it.

That certain economic rules benefit some and harm others seems pretty uncontroversial. That those who are harmed by changes to said rules should quit expecting to be "given" things and just work harder seems like an obvious double-standard. That coupling of economic power to political power makes ethical reasoning on this topic in particular a bit muddy also seems uncontroversial.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#183

Post by khana »

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…

IMO, mine own, this is the CORRECT NARRATIVE

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#184

Post by anigbrowl »

SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #118
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).

Your parenthetical actually supports the point you're debating against: if the racist policies have been fixed and what's lingering is the effects of poverty caused by historic racism, wouldn't the solution be to address the poverty ?

How would you characterize the response to such proposals?

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#185

Post by anigbrowl »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #139
rayiner wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "

You're both right. Long-term benefit certainly should be the guiding policy, but as Keynes observed 'in the long run we are all dead.' Because many people are selfish and because political systems are relatively easy to game, short-term self-serving strategies often prevail.

It's the same thing in dictatorships. Many dictators could use their highly concentrated authority to undertake large projects that would benefit their population significantly and leave a great legacy. But most of them don't because it's easier and more predictable to just maintain an iron grip on power and enjoy a life of luxury while suppressing any opposition.

Strategically, many people prefer to be a big fish in a small pond than the reverse.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#186

Post by throwanem »

anigbrowl wrote: post #166
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…

Sanders vs. Trump would've been a much more interesting election I agree, and it continues to perplex me that the Sanders campaign didn't put int he effort to develop a detailed policy agenda in parallel with the noble principles it was articulating. You can blame people, if you like, for going with the sole candidate who at least pretended to give a shit about their problems Oh please. I did not find Hillary Clinton…

Perceived as at least pretending to give a shit, then. Her policy agenda might have offered some real solutions for working-class problems - and it might not have; I no longer recall in enough detail to speak confidently without a refresher, but neoliberals have not traditionally been effective in this regard - but what played was "deplorables".

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#187

Post by keeganmccallum »

zghst wrote: post #149
keeganmccallum wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 u…

I agree in a sense, but if this way of living is so attractive to the best and brightest that it takes them away from their own languages, cultures, home lands, families, etc. who can really say what is best for those people on an individual level. Are we supposed to keep these countries in the dark, and hide this way of living to essentially trick their top people into staying in the old ways for the sake of preserving the past? One solution that can help everybody is to remove some of the competitive nature and make sure that this system can actually support all the people involved in the spreading global system rather than funneling all the benefits to the best and brightest, another is to make it possible to participate in the global economy while preserving more of the old cultures, but at the end of the day the only constant is change, and these other cultures will continue evolve one way or another.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#188

Post by mozumder »

PatentTroll wrote: post #173
grasshopperpurp wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are degrees to things, and wealth inequality in the US is the worst it's been since right before the Great Depression. The idea that wealth inequality on this level is 'no big deal' is as stupid as it gets.

OP sets up the straw man of "anybody against any inequality must be advocating perfect equality" - which is hogwash. By OP's logic, feudalism is perfectly fine because it accentuates the differences between serfs and kings. Or hell, even slavery is Ok. What reasonable people have to start to appreciate is that everything isn't black and white, there are shades of gray and we can have meaningful disagreements about wh…

So then define exactly what's good and bad, and let me know why.

I get that inequality has gotten worse, but has it put us in a unstable situation? Has society collapsed? Are the roads destroyed? Is average lifespan now 0?

We have more billionaires, but we also have 22 million more people with health care due to Obamacare now.

What metrics are you using, and why are those metrics more important than other metrics people might use.

Until you can clearly define that, we might as well say the anti-globalists are trying to turn everyone into ordinary chunks of common matter.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#189

Post by anigbrowl »

rubicon33 wrote: post #63
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.

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…

At what point do we reward human accomplishment

At the point where you start finding lots of nice houses and comfortable-looking cars. Lot so fo people already enjoy substantial rewards for accomplishment. That's great. The problem is that sometimes all the benefits are ascribed to accomplishment and luck is completely discounted.

Look, you've played Monopoly, right? You take a bunch of players of about equal skill level, put them into a game, and who is doing well after 10 rounds of the board is a matter of both skill and luck. Eventually one player will end up with all the money and the others will go bankrupt, because that's the outcome the game is structured to produce.

Now, Monopoly is just a game and so players could in a tournament play multiple games to minimize the luck factor and figure out which players have the greatest skill. But in the real world you don't get to try out a different life strategy every year and then reset on January 1 for a fresh round. If you start out with poor luck, then your disadvantages can accumulate just as your advantages can.

Further, people don't all start out with the same beginning conditions as they do in a game of Monopoly. Nobody wants to come in and join a game of Monopoly already in progress because many of the strategic options have already become unavailable. Likewise it would be a less fun game to play if initial cash allocations were random and some players started out with much more or less than others.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#190

Post by anigbrowl »

Swizec wrote: post #159
Mikeb85 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 "Ye…

I'm also European. Which group has it worst in your country, and why?
Post reply on HN