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

211–220 of 221 posts

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#211

Post by pcwalton »

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…

> There is a reason even Trump campaigned on cleaning up the air and water. Even Americans who think the EPA or OSHA or DOL are out of control wouldn't tolerate the labor and environmental standards that exist in Bangladesh or China.

Trump says anything and everything, and his words effectively have no meaning at this point. To name one example out of thousands, Trump also campaigned on making more people insured, which is clearly not something he has any interest in actually doing.

Rather than looking at Trump for an example of the rightmost side of the "Overton window" (much as I dislike that term) on environment, I would look at politicians like Ted Cruz. Cruz has effectively never said anything about cleaning up the air or water. I think that doing absolutely nothing about the environment is much more popular of a position than you imply. Anti-environmentalism is even a religious concern for many Americans.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#212

Post by dang »

throwawaymanbot wrote: post #97
perfmode wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Please don't post political flamebait here.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#213

Post by keenerd »

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.…

> An American cannot even eat on $2k/year

Baloney. It is easy to stay under $1.5K/year per person and that includes a pound of fresh fruit/veg each day. I've never even tried to save money either; no coupon clipping, no buying in bulk. Learn to cook. With a small amount of practice you'll be "fast enough" too, where it'll take less time for you to cook/clean than to eat out.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#214

Post by throwawaymanbot »

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…

I would argue, based on chatting to some of the artists I have met over the years, that Artists will create Art regardless of wealthy patronage. Wealthy patronage is nice of course, but the will, the need and the want to create art is primary motivator for Artists. In the same way, that those who have an urge to start businesses, are not prevented to start business in countries with high taxation.

Skyscrapers are a cool engineering feat. But, have you been to Europe? where there are not many skyscrapers, but amazing cities...

I take issue however, with the term "globalist neoliberal Democrats" as if the Democrats are the only people who favor global trade? And if people pay taxes collectively, why should there not be returns? (Such as food stamps, etc)

Otherwise, there wold be zero need for any tax over 5% for anybody, right?

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#215

Post by rayiner »

pcwalton wrote: post #211
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…

> There is a reason even Trump campaigned on cleaning up the air and water. Even Americans who think the EPA or OSHA or DOL are out of control wouldn't tolerate the labor and environmental standards that exist in Bangladesh or China. Trump says anything and everything, and his words effectively have no meaning at this point. To name one example out of thousands, Trump also campaigned on making more people insured, wh…

I'm not talking about the Overton window, but what sorts of policies you can get significant support for among actual Americans. There are certain issues like climate change that have become lightning rods, but there is broad consensus on other issues. For example, 52% of Republicans polled stated that the country "should do whatever it takes to protect the environment." Pew: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/20/for-earth-da... (down from ~67-70% in 2005). A majority even of republicans want stricter air quality standards for many pollutants: http://grist.org/climate-policy/2011-02-16-public-trusts-epa....

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#216

Post by throwawaymanbot »

maxxxxx wrote: post #164
justforFranz wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to let Hillary Clinton off the hook, much of her appeal was about defending & protecting minorities (and women) from continued discrimination. And from what we've been shown during the campaign and since then, discrimination is alive and well - even if it doesn't affect you personally. But yeah, I doubt Hillary would have helped labor to generate the kind of pricing power they need to keep the society from caving…

"much of her appeal was about defending & protecting minorities (and women) from continued discrimination." Making this your main platform is just a losing strategy.

Rabbiting this line is pointless. Its too easy to fact check. 2 mins on google, can show you this was not her main platform at all. She had an entire economic plan, health plan, etc.

And I was brought up to think that there is nothing wrong with showing ALL people respect. Women (and minorities included)

Im assuming you may think, or have been brought up different.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#217

Post by throwawaymanbot »

justforFranz wrote: post #124
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…

Not to let Hillary Clinton off the hook, much of her appeal was about defending & protecting minorities (and women) from continued discrimination. And from what we've been shown during the campaign and since then, discrimination is alive and well - even if it doesn't affect you personally. But yeah, I doubt Hillary would have helped labor to generate the kind of pricing power they need to keep the society from caving…

No one can. The difference is Clinton Dems know this. Trump told his voters differently, and they believed him. The reality is not going to change, and he cannot change it. Even if his supporters believe he can.

Discrimination is alive and well, and thats exactly why people feel strongly about thwarting it. Im not sure if I was looking at a different campaign, but there were many more primary points to her Campaign than "protecting and defending Minorities" as you casually put it. Its easily seen on Google.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#218

Post by throwawaymanbot »

dang wrote: post #212
throwawaymanbot wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Please don't post political flamebait here.

Sorry Dang.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#219

Post by PatentTroll »

mozumder wrote: post #188
PatentTroll wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peo…

Well I guess that's my point, let's have a conversation about inequality and discuss how much is too much. It's a reasonable thing to debate. Your post seemed to imply that railing against the 1% was inappropriate in some way

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#220

Post by api »

keenerd wrote: post #213
api wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> An American cannot even eat on $2k/year Baloney. It is easy to stay under $1.5K/year per person and that includes a pound of fresh fruit/veg each day. I've never even tried to save money either; no coupon clipping, no buying in bulk. Learn to cook. With a small amount of practice you'll be "fast enough" too, where it'll take less time for you to cook/clean than to eat out.

Where do you live? Even in little towns and with shared housing the rent is going to be >$10k/year. In larger cities you can forget about it. Detroit is probably the best real estate bargain in America, and you can't live there on $2k/year.
Post reply on HN