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

Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

lrb.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 96 posts

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#21

Post by tonyedgecombe »

geysersam wrote: post #13
churchill wrote: post #4

I read the book referenced - Robert Lightizer's No Trade Is Free: Changing Course, Taking on China, and Helping America's Workers - and it was eye-opening, if somewhat misguided. In it, the author blames China's industrial ascent for America's deindustrialization, the hollowing out of cities like Detroit, the fentanyl crisis, the looming challenge to American power in the Pacific, the intimidation of America's allies…

On the other hand, I bet a lot of people in Detroit wouldn't mind paying more for the goods they consume if that meant having stable jobs and living in a city that is not bankrupt. The QE point you're making is interesting. In addition to that I think it should be noted that the money that was "printed" disproportionately went to the richest, just as the benefits of globalization did. In conclusion, while globalizati…

Did Detroit loose out to China or automation?

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#22

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

churchill wrote: post #4

I read the book referenced - Robert Lightizer's No Trade Is Free: Changing Course, Taking on China, and Helping America's Workers - and it was eye-opening, if somewhat misguided. In it, the author blames China's industrial ascent for America's deindustrialization, the hollowing out of cities like Detroit, the fentanyl crisis, the looming challenge to American power in the Pacific, the intimidation of America's allies…

The problem with China is that it is not a level playing field. Not even close. If they were an open market, then you would not see as big of a trade imbalance. They are predatory, manipulative and duplicitous.

The ideas behind globalism was to promote peace through trade and it worked for a while until China used it to try to become an empire.

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#23

Post by hgomersall »

diputsmonro wrote: post #11
somanyphotons wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difficulty is that while we can move the job to where the cheaper (or specialized) labor is, we can't (currently) easily move the people around to where the job is. So lower skilled people living in areas surrounded by high skill/cost people can't easily find a better Cost-of-Living balance. They get trapped with no job to match their skill. To put it more bluntly - the people of Detroit simply aren't allowed to…

Which is exactly why strategies like UBI are so important. Eventually the average American with no specialized skill will find that they cannot produce value when competing on a global scale. Our strategy so far has been to let them starve and tell them to "learn to code" or "become a machine operator/technician", but that strategy can only help so many people. We do not need as many technicians as laborers that the…

It's not a UBI needed but a job guarantee. Those people that no longer have a job need to be made productive, both for society and for themselves. It's not like there aren't plenty of things that need doing!

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#24

Post by wk_end »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #12
nahuel0x wrote: post #7

Tariffs wars are the prelude to military wars. Capitalism breeds globalization and then his destruction.

>Tariffs wars are the prelude to military wars. You're basing this on what?

Well, the article says:

Trade history is too often a sideline reserved for economic historians, yet any effective study of the past four hundred years ought to move it to centre stage, as a prime generator of war and peace, stability and chaos, prosperity and dearth. As Clausewitz might have said, shooting wars are trade wars carried on by other means. Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, for instance, came after the tsar quit the Continental Blockade.

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#25

Post by geysersam »

churchill wrote: post #16
geysersam wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, I bet a lot of people in Detroit wouldn't mind paying more for the goods they consume if that meant having stable jobs and living in a city that is not bankrupt. The QE point you're making is interesting. In addition to that I think it should be noted that the money that was "printed" disproportionately went to the richest, just as the benefits of globalization did. In conclusion, while globalizati…

The US unemployment rate currently stands at 4.2% - despite all the hundreds of millions of jobs that have been outsourced to Chinese workers. Why isn't this gap larger? The reason is simple: as jobs move to places where they can be done cheaper, the market reorganizes itself! That's why horses, telegrams, and zeppelins are not missed. Better tech. has replaced them; these Americans got better jobs, mostly by moving…

But many of the jobs "lost" were replaced by jobs that produces less value and has worse salary. That's only natural. If there was a higher value job that could be done, it would already have replaced the "lost" job before it was lost.

We can turn and twist and look at it from many different angles but the conclusion is the same: Global economic output increased and economic inequality in rich countries increased.

I don't think it's meaningful to blame any other countries like China and Vietnam for this development. But critique against globalization/our current system of trade should be taken seriously.

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#26

Post by worldsayshi »

churchill wrote: post #4

I read the book referenced - Robert Lightizer's No Trade Is Free: Changing Course, Taking on China, and Helping America's Workers - and it was eye-opening, if somewhat misguided. In it, the author blames China's industrial ascent for America's deindustrialization, the hollowing out of cities like Detroit, the fentanyl crisis, the looming challenge to American power in the Pacific, the intimidation of America's allies…

> Specialization is what makes the luxury and wealth of the modern world possible

Specialization is not the key here. Although it certainly is one of the major methods that we have used to attain the actual key feature - productivity. Less work per thing produced. Specialization is one enabler for this. It is easier to optimize when the scale is huge. But specialization is not a requirement.

We used to have one device per technical problem. Now we have fewer and more general devices. A smartphone or a pc does what a multitude of devices used to do. The same transformation can happen in industry as well.

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#27

Post by churchill »

watwut wrote: post #20
churchill wrote: post #4

I read the book referenced - Robert Lightizer's No Trade Is Free: Changing Course, Taking on China, and Helping America's Workers - and it was eye-opening, if somewhat misguided. In it, the author blames China's industrial ascent for America's deindustrialization, the hollowing out of cities like Detroit, the fentanyl crisis, the looming challenge to American power in the Pacific, the intimidation of America's allies…

I have seen multiple stats and farmers were never on top of suicides. It was either miners or doctors (anesthesiologist the most).

It's so prevalent that Wikipedia has dedicated pages for specifically American, [0] Indian, [1] and Canadian [2] farmer suicides. In the US, farmer suicide rates are 3.5* the general population. The rate for the general population is between 2-4%, so for farmers it'd be 7%-14%, comparable to the rate for anesthesiologists, at 7%-17%. For physicians, it's just over 1%.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_suicides_in_the_Uni... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_suicides_in_India [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_suicides_in_Canada

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#28

Post by churchill »

FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #22
churchill wrote: post #4

I read the book referenced - Robert Lightizer's No Trade Is Free: Changing Course, Taking on China, and Helping America's Workers - and it was eye-opening, if somewhat misguided. In it, the author blames China's industrial ascent for America's deindustrialization, the hollowing out of cities like Detroit, the fentanyl crisis, the looming challenge to American power in the Pacific, the intimidation of America's allies…

The problem with China is that it is not a level playing field. Not even close. If they were an open market, then you would not see as big of a trade imbalance. They are predatory, manipulative and duplicitous. The ideas behind globalism was to promote peace through trade and it worked for a while until China used it to try to become an empire.

If the Chinese want to dilute the wealth of their people and use it to subsidize stuff for Western consumers, the smart thing to do would be to buy it!

Anti-trade activists always agitate about how they'll jerk up prices after capturing markets, but Uber hasn't managed to pull it off, despite >$50 billion burned. The moment a company's margins hike significantly, they attract competitors chasing those same dollars and they have to lower prices or lose market share.

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#29

Post by horns4lyfe »

churchill wrote: post #18
xterminator wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we should live a more fulfilling life even if it costs luxuries. Less globalization, more localization. Economics should stop having the final say on everything.

Taken to its natural conclusion, your idea is that we should farm our own wheat, thresh it, grind it into flour, make our own bread, and build our own homes. Should we do that? If jobs can't be exported to specialists who can do it at scale in Asia, Europe, etc. then there should be no specialization at all! Your logic demands that everyone fend for themselves primitively, which will lead to a collapse of the abundan…

You don’t have to take it that far

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#30

Post by joe_the_user »

churchill wrote: post #4

I read the book referenced - Robert Lightizer's No Trade Is Free: Changing Course, Taking on China, and Helping America's Workers - and it was eye-opening, if somewhat misguided. In it, the author blames China's industrial ascent for America's deindustrialization, the hollowing out of cities like Detroit, the fentanyl crisis, the looming challenge to American power in the Pacific, the intimidation of America's allies…

The thing is, US manufacturing jobs started as fewer and declined more than, say, Italy and Germany [1]. US policies weren't particularly opposed to the decline.

That said, the conception that manufacturing jobs are "good" compared to other jobs is simplistic if not outright false.

The US once had quiet a few relatively high paid, unionized manufacturing jobs. Some of those went to China and some of those went to the South/South-West where wages were also lower and union protections less.

The fuzziness of US political rhetoric creates a real distorting lens. Manufacturing jobs can be substituted for safe, well-paying skilled jobs. The existence of jobs can be sold as a goal rather than (employment, wage and safety) protections for workers, etc. And then what politicians actually do winds-up with little relation to the rhetoric anyway.

https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/manufacturing-accou...

Post reply on HN