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

31–40 of 96 posts

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#31

Post by jncfhnb »

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…

Farmer suicide rates are generally attributed to the brutal financial struggle of it. A lot of farmers are just digging themselves into a hole.

I find the idea that difficult physical labor is the driver of suicide rates to be silly.

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#32

Post by ryeats »

Would be more interesting if someone came at this debate from a game theory perspective with bad actors ignoring IP laws, manipulating currency values and implementing tariffs through policies that aren't directly taxing products but restricting who can play in markets. Yes tariffs are bad in a vacuum and I am not saying this article is false even when it's strawmanning some arguments to make it's case but it's seems a bit one sided and possibly nieve without including the context in which these policies are being made so I still remain on the fence as to whether tariffs can be used as leverage.

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#33

Post by dilyevsky »

churchill wrote: post #28
FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

Pretty obvious counter is it's not smart if in the process you've totally destroyed your domestic production

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#34

Post by geysersam »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #21
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…

Did Detroit loose out to China or automation?

Not sure. The specific example is less important than the idea that even if total economic output increased there may be a large minority (or possibly a majority) who did not benefit from it because the profits were distributed unevenly

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#35

Post by Avicebron »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #21
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…

Did Detroit loose out to China or automation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_sucking_sound

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#36

Post by jncfhnb »

churchill wrote: post #28
FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

Uber prices have been increasing for years now at a rate much faster than inflation

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#37

Post by mathiaspoint »

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…

What you're looking for is called "labor participation" not unemployment. After six months people stop being counted as unemployed.

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#39

Post by maxerickson »

somanyphotons wrote: post #5
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 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…

All you people doing Detroit discourse need to also explain why the county just to the north, Oakland County, is one of the richest large counties in the United States.

I guess they have a lot of Pizza Huts or something?

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#40

Post by rootjknak »

ryeats wrote: post #32

Would be more interesting if someone came at this debate from a game theory perspective with bad actors ignoring IP laws, manipulating currency values and implementing tariffs through policies that aren't directly taxing products but restricting who can play in markets. Yes tariffs are bad in a vacuum and I am not saying this article is false even when it's strawmanning some arguments to make it's case but it's seems…

It mentions it in the article, which technically references Lighthizer's book passage:

" ‘A crucial mistake,’ according to Lighthizer, had been to let China into the WTO and treat it as just another country like America’s free-market allies. The result was that millions of well-paid jobs in US manufacturing disappeared, as more and more work was outsourced and offshored. "

A close examination of the passage appears to be correct: accordingly, China only met about 50% of the WTO entry requirement in the last 20 years. They were in essence, acting as a bad actor. Not only that, now they were seeking, prior to covid, to replace the current rule based trading system, with one where they got to have unlimited export to other countries, while the government suppressed wages and consumer spending internally, in order to strengthen the state. All other countries production be damned. The low wage low cost export would destroy all of the production capabilities in other countries.

And now with China openly claiming to Europe that Russia must not fail, they are blatant in their desire to destroy the western democracies, in support of authoritarian dictatorships in the world.

Post reply on HN