Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Globalization Has Broken the Chain of Responsibility

sapiens.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 105 posts

Re: How Globalization Has Broken the Chain of Responsibility

#71

Post by spc476 »

glitchc wrote: post #4

Multi-national corporations are counting on the disparity to essentially play arbitrage with labour. Nationalism feeds into that, so it's in their interest to stoke nationalist sentiments.

I don't buy that. I'm old enough to remember when people (US citizens) got upset when companies moved their operations from the north (Northern US) to the South (Southeastern US) because it was cheaper (cheap labor).

Yes, there was a play arbitrage with labor, but nationalism never feed into that because it was all inside one country.

Re: How Globalization Has Broken the Chain of Responsibility

#72

Post by baud147258 »

perl4ever wrote: post #59
sonnyblarney wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, again, sorry I think this is wrong. Multinationals are almost all in favour of open borders. They want a) cheap labour and some, good companies need b) high end talent. The later is more rare though. Every big company I know is 'pro migration' I can't think of a single one that's against it. Google is more in favour of getting 'highly skilled' people, while most others are in favour of 'bodies' for cheap labour.…

It seems to me that immigration helps raise wages. A multinational company is going to employ people in India regardless of US immigration policy. But if those people can come to the US and make 5x the money, then even if they are making somewhat less than other Americans, they are improving (i.e. raising wages in) the global market for labor that we have to compete in. Given that wages in India and other places are…

According to you, immigration would help raise wages globally, but since it introduces lower-paid worker in a national/local labor market, it would reduce wages at this level. And I don't think we're working in a global market for labor, the supply is too unelastic to be a market.

Re: How Globalization Has Broken the Chain of Responsibility

#73

Post by 56chan4 »

internet_user wrote: post #21
glitchc wrote: post #4

Multi-national corporations are counting on the disparity to essentially play arbitrage with labour. Nationalism feeds into that, so it's in their interest to stoke nationalist sentiments.

And the worst part is not just labor arbitrage. Rules that we have defined to protect the environment in which we live, safety of the products we use, security/privacy of our data. All of that gets arbitraged away, just like offshore havens are used to hide dirty cash behind veils of various legal stuctures.

Globalists who want the NWO will also exploit legal loopholes in different countries to further their agenda. All perfectly legal as well making them untouchable. Hacking foreign entities is the most obvious example, but it also means global companies can legally engage in corporate espionage to further consolidate their positions. Tax havens and off-shoring profits is another example many many people will be familiar with. Some CEO's are legal moral criminals in a way, but the common theme is clever people have been exploiting stupid since before the time of Christ.

Re: How Globalization Has Broken the Chain of Responsibility

#74

Post by grosjona »

The problem is that people with power are getting more power and they are getting fewer in numbers so they have limited bandwidth for dealing with issues efficiently. So they delegate everything to people who are on their payroll and who themselves will delegate subtasks to other people also on the payroll, etc... In the end, what we have is no different from communism. There is no incentive for employees of big corporations to work harder because mobility is limited based on who joined the company first.

Re: How Globalization Has Broken the Chain of Responsibility

#75

Post by nafey »

shard972 wrote: post #47
westiseast wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume he means because nationalism stokes tensions between citizens while companies quietly extract value from society.

Why would nationalism stoke tensions between citizens? The point of nationalism is to unite the society around the nation. It seems to me that multiculturalism if anything leads to more tensions as it seeks to add more groups that don't have as much in common as the people already there.

Contemporary history suggests nationalism is almost always a reactionary movement. Reactionary movements are by definition in reaction to some other political entity. Thus the tension.

Re: How Globalization Has Broken the Chain of Responsibility

#76

Post by Gibbon1 »

jaggederest wrote: post #64
afterburner wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carbon taxes change the profit math for companies, which affects their decisions, that's the biggest change. They have to be high enough to change the decision though.

US$120 / ton of pure carbon, or about $32/ton CO2 should be about right. Ramp it up over 6 years, front loaded a bit, starting with $30/ton C, increasing $15/ton carbon per year. If that were done in a largely revenue neutral way on a worldwide scale, we could turn carbon emission around in a hurry. I'd actually advocate for putting aside some of the money to reward people actively removing airborne carbon dioxide do…

I think a CO2 tax should be applied to capital equipment at the time of sale for best effect.

Re: How Globalization Has Broken the Chain of Responsibility

#77

Post by leereeves »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #51
leereeves wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that definition the US is the least nationalist country on the planet. 20% of the world's foreign born population lives in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d... And it seems to me that it's that lack of "nationalism" as you've defined it that's helping US-based companies exploit cheap labor in (or from) other nations.

Even if you were to define nationalism solely based foreign-born population, the least nationalistic country would obviously be Vatican City with 100% foreign born or UAE with 84% if you want to exclude extreme outliers. The US isn't even particularly high at 14% of the population being foreign born. And of course, restrictions on freedom of movement can't be summed up exclusively with number of immigrants. There are…

I think you know I was only offering foreign born population as an example of the US's freedom of movement, not as the definition of nationalism.

If you're intentionally misinterpreting me, this discussion isn't going anywhere. But in the hope that that's not the case, I'll try again:

What country offers freedom of movement to the most people? The US, by far.

Re: How Globalization Has Broken the Chain of Responsibility

#78

Post by jaggederest »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #76
jaggederest wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US$120 / ton of pure carbon, or about $32/ton CO2 should be about right. Ramp it up over 6 years, front loaded a bit, starting with $30/ton C, increasing $15/ton carbon per year. If that were done in a largely revenue neutral way on a worldwide scale, we could turn carbon emission around in a hurry. I'd actually advocate for putting aside some of the money to reward people actively removing airborne carbon dioxide do…

I think a CO2 tax should be applied to capital equipment at the time of sale for best effect.

That creates some disincentives towards efficiency, and operation of equipment is often a much larger carbon source than initial manufacture.

I think in practice it would work like a VAT, which is well understood and creates a reasonably level playing field.

Re: How Globalization Has Broken the Chain of Responsibility

#80

Post by shanghaiaway »

leereeves wrote: post #77
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you were to define nationalism solely based foreign-born population, the least nationalistic country would obviously be Vatican City with 100% foreign born or UAE with 84% if you want to exclude extreme outliers. The US isn't even particularly high at 14% of the population being foreign born. And of course, restrictions on freedom of movement can't be summed up exclusively with number of immigrants. There are…

I think you know I was only offering foreign born population as an example of the US's freedom of movement, not as the definition of nationalism. If you're intentionally misinterpreting me, this discussion isn't going anywhere. But in the hope that that's not the case, I'll try again: What country offers freedom of movement to the most people? The US, by far.

China offers far more freedom of movement. US is at the bottom. By far.
Post reply on HN