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

“The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”

committees.parliament.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 87 posts

Re: “The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”

#41

Post by FpUser »

mozman wrote: post #39
cs702 wrote: post #9

Reads like a slogan for anti-globalization and nationalism. As with all slogans, it ignores important details that contradict it. Over the past four decades, our current global economic system, promoting economic integration and interdependence between countries, has lifted billions out of poverty.[a][b] Billions. No sensible discussion of globalization can ignore that . The current backlash is not against globalizat…

I support nationalism, we have many domestic problems we must fix before we start fixing other countries. If we have to go to war than so be it. People will always argue and there will always be consequences of these arguments.

>"many domestic problems we must fix before we start fixing other countries."

>"If we have to go to war than so be it."

The more I look at these two statements the more I think that someone would benefit from having their head examined.

Re: “The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”

#42

Post by celeritascelery »

Aachen wrote: post #36
thfuran wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, there are some dumb sayings, but I really think that one tops the list.

I've never understood it actually. What does the author mean when using "proves the rule", is it somehow proving it by it being a clear exception with special circumstances (somehow that rarely seems the case) or are they just acknowledging the incorrectness of the rule in a joke-y manner?

> is it somehow proving it by it being a clear exception with special circumstances

Essentially yes. I would wager that if Putin could go back in time, he would not invade Ukraine. The economic consequences have been too severe. It really serves as a warning to other countries.

So Russia is now an exception to the “McDonald’s rule”, but it proves why the rule is generally true.

Re: “The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”

#43

Post by _8j50 »

cs702 wrote: post #9

Reads like a slogan for anti-globalization and nationalism. As with all slogans, it ignores important details that contradict it. Over the past four decades, our current global economic system, promoting economic integration and interdependence between countries, has lifted billions out of poverty.[a][b] Billions. No sensible discussion of globalization can ignore that . The current backlash is not against globalizat…

No sensible discussion about globalization should ignore the impact of economic sanctions have had over the developing world and how globalization in some ways made weak countries subservient to strong countries.One of the main arguments is how it undermines a nation's self-determination and how the price is too high.

Global trade isn't the same as globalization. You can trade fine with others without relying on them. So your discussion about lifing people from poverty should include how specifically interdependence between countries as opposed to improvements in technology amd trade relations has resulted in poverty reduction.

We don't have to look far, because of globalization, a potential conflict between taiwan and china is the current biggest threat to global peace. TSMC is building factories in the US and India as well as apple trying to get out of China specifically to avoid global interdependence. TSMC plans to supply US demands by US fabs. But apple will face the same issue in other countries if or when conditions become hostile.

We don't live in a world where every country is working together for the progression of mankind. Each country looks out for itself. This means banning US tech companies from operating in Countries like China but allowing them to outsource labor there. Anyone from the rustbelt or former industrial towns in the US will tell you the impact of outsourcing labor (greedy business finding a way to to pay people less).

Another consideration is the impact of automation and how cheap labor is needed less and less so why not make stuff locally?

It isn't just poverty that reduced but the wealth of the few top rich businesses increased by many orders of magnitude because they got around tax and labor laws thanks to globalization.

My argument is you can still have free trade and innovation without giving up your sovreignity as a nation or looking the other way on tax and labor laws or undermining local labor unions.

Re: “The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”

#44

Post by LargeWu »

cs702 wrote: post #25
HL33tibCe7 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But let’s also not throw out the baby with the bathwater in the _opposite_ direction. We should not be reliant on Russia for energy to such an extent that our economy gets destroyed when a Russian tyrant goes on an ego trip. We should not be allowing Chinese entities to own our energy infrastructure. We should not be allowing foreign nationals to buy up massive amounts of property in London with shady money, distorti…

We should not be reliant on fossil fuels for energy, period. There's a mountain of scientific evidence showing that extracting, transporting, storing, and burning all that poisonous crap is very bad for humankind. The sooner we move to other sources (fusion (!), solar, wind, etc.), the better for humankind. However, companies that make money from fossil fuels don't want that, and for the past four decades they've had…

You're missing the point a bit.

Replace energy with food, water, medicine, microchips, or any other commodities necessary for modern life and the point still stands.

Re: “The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”

#45

Post by fleischhauf »

jvanderbot wrote: post #5
gottebp wrote: post #3

At the international level, it is debate-able. It depends on the goodwill nations have towards one another. At the individual and family level though, atomization is incredibly destructive to culture and community. Reliance on others is needed more than ever. To be absolutely independent, is to be without love (given or received). Family, community, and nation cannot exist without love — it is the vital glue that hol…

I'd argue that inter-reliance is what brings a framework for peace and mutual respect, at all levels from family up to global politics. Less personally, in Accidental Superpower, the case is made that the west's insistence on free and safe trade over international waters has helped to broker a long stretch of mostly peaceful time - precisely because it creates these interrelations that become important.

that was the German strategy towards Russia "Wandel durch Handel". Assuming that trade is mutual beneficial it makes an armed conflict less likely because both sides have so much to lose. With Russia it did not work unfortunately. It's debatable if it works with china.

Re: “The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”

#46

Post by zmgsabst »

cs702 wrote: post #9

Reads like a slogan for anti-globalization and nationalism. As with all slogans, it ignores important details that contradict it. Over the past four decades, our current global economic system, promoting economic integration and interdependence between countries, has lifted billions out of poverty.[a][b] Billions. No sensible discussion of globalization can ignore that . The current backlash is not against globalizat…

4. you looted a billion people to uplift those billions — and they hate you now for robbing and oppressing their families to the point they couldn’t breed

People who believe in globalism should’ve taken your advice thirty years ago — but after destroying families for two generations, they’re going to fall on the managerial class like feral animals seeking blood.

The managerial class in the West will be executed for betraying their nations — and we’re past any way to stop that.

Why is it people only give your wise managerial quips after disasters, but never proactively?

Re: “The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”

#47

Post by boppo1 »

FpUser wrote: post #41
mozman wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I support nationalism, we have many domestic problems we must fix before we start fixing other countries. If we have to go to war than so be it. People will always argue and there will always be consequences of these arguments.

>"many domestic problems we must fix before we start fixing other countries." >"If we have to go to war than so be it." The more I look at these two statements the more I think that someone would benefit from having their head examined.

Yeah, bad idea to go to war unless your shit at home is already together. Wars are expensive. I think a lot of the domestic turmoil in the US can be linked to our useless wars in the ME. Could have used all that steel and those men to build stuff here: hospitals, schools, trains and so on.

Bush & cheney did enormously more damage to the US than Trump. Not that I liked Trump at all.

Re: “The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”

#48

Post by tacitusarc »

cs702 wrote: post #25
HL33tibCe7 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But let’s also not throw out the baby with the bathwater in the _opposite_ direction. We should not be reliant on Russia for energy to such an extent that our economy gets destroyed when a Russian tyrant goes on an ego trip. We should not be allowing Chinese entities to own our energy infrastructure. We should not be allowing foreign nationals to buy up massive amounts of property in London with shady money, distorti…

We should not be reliant on fossil fuels for energy, period. There's a mountain of scientific evidence showing that extracting, transporting, storing, and burning all that poisonous crap is very bad for humankind. The sooner we move to other sources (fusion (!), solar, wind, etc.), the better for humankind. However, companies that make money from fossil fuels don't want that, and for the past four decades they've had…

Reliance on other nations for critical resources is a separate concern from technological mechanisms for acquiring those resources, even if the later may help solve the former.

Re: “The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”

#49

Post by LargeWu »

mozman wrote: post #39
cs702 wrote: post #9

Reads like a slogan for anti-globalization and nationalism. As with all slogans, it ignores important details that contradict it. Over the past four decades, our current global economic system, promoting economic integration and interdependence between countries, has lifted billions out of poverty.[a][b] Billions. No sensible discussion of globalization can ignore that . The current backlash is not against globalizat…

I support nationalism, we have many domestic problems we must fix before we start fixing other countries. If we have to go to war than so be it. People will always argue and there will always be consequences of these arguments.

How many domestic problems in developed countries are the result of income inequality? Probably most of them. Poor education, poor wages, poor health(care)...these exist because of the billionaire class extracting wealth from the economy. Those problems aren't going to be solved by going to war.

Re: “The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”

#50

Post by brookst »

AntoniusBlock wrote: post #33
brookst wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO that’s also a kneejerk response. There are dangers to our already-declining reliance on China, but also benefits. The big one is that countries with deeply entangled economies rarely go to war with each other. A world where we don’t rely on China for anything is a world where we are more likely at war with them. “Security means not depending on anyone else” is just off-the-grid survivalism writ large. It’s true i…

I might've agreed with you had Russia not invaded Ukraine. Your assumption is the same assumption we all made, but they invaded Ukraine anyway.

What did Russia depend on Ukraine for?

Russia did not think it was attacking Europe. It is not a remotely analogous situation to US/China. China is much more mutually dependent on the US, and much more sane.

Post reply on HN