Live data from Hacker News

Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

lrb.co.uk

81–90 of 96 posts

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#81
post #78
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there choices? Of course I guess in America with our two party oligopoly we can’t really talk that much.

Depends at which level. From what I understand, democracy in China exists for local elections (they are mostly in the hand of local small bourgeoisie, but you have a choice).

I doubt they get a choice of communist party or non communist party. I'm not sure any communist party in history has survived giving its grateful proletariat the chance to vote for something else?

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#82
post #81
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends at which level. From what I understand, democracy in China exists for local elections (they are mostly in the hand of local small bourgeoisie, but you have a choice).

I doubt they get a choice of communist party or non communist party. I'm not sure any communist party in history has survived giving its grateful proletariat the chance to vote for something else?

The communist party is the government, but within the party there is a significant amount of ideological diversity. The most notable examples are between “true believers” like Mao and pragmatists like Deng and Hu

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#83
post #75

„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.“ I agree. The WTO should be limited to democratic countries. It was a huge mistake to have countries like China, Russia and Saudi-Arabia in the WTO. These countries don’t play by the rules and consequently should be punished by the highest tariffs possible. Therefor…

AFAIK China is democratic and has elections.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index China is on place 145 from 167 countries. About the first 100 countries are all democratic. Everything below 100 is a dictatorship.

And since mainland China was never a democracy it can be said that China is more than 2000 years behind the West in democratic development.

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#84
post #75

„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.“ I agree. The WTO should be limited to democratic countries. It was a huge mistake to have countries like China, Russia and Saudi-Arabia in the WTO. These countries don’t play by the rules and consequently should be punished by the highest tariffs possible. Therefor…

Unfortunately we are in the process of dismantling democracy at home as well.

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#85
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Capitalism breeds globalization and then his destruction. Do we have any precedence for the destruction part?

Besides climate change and the fact that we killed like ~70% of wildlife in less than a hundred years ? Nope

I meant precedence for the destruction of a “social system”, obviously I know that we’re destroying the planet.

The quote was

> Capitalism breeds globalization and then his destruction.

Since this is our first capitalism it’s hard to extrapolate what happens at the end.

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#86
post #72

„Aristotle thought that the life of tradesmen and mechanics was ‘ignoble and inimical to virtue’. He rather approved of the way that Thebes disqualified business types from public office until they had been retired for ten years.“ That would be a great law against lobbyism and revolving doors politics.

Ancient Babylon and other parts of the ancient world would regularly cancel non-commercial debts - effectively a wealth transfer from the wealthy to the workers, preventing the rise of an oligarchic class. However, once an oligarchy is in place, it’s counter to its interests to its relinquish control of the political process - the day it chooses to relinquish power for the common good never comes.

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For this claim to work, you have to demonstrate why this time is different, why standards of living and disposable income have been rising in the West and all over the world for 50 years or more—all while technological progress was as fast or faster than today.

> standards of living and disposable income have been rising in the West and all over the world for 50 years or more Standard of living has been steadily declining in most of Western Europe post 2009: stagnating wages, exploding costs of living, declining public healthcare, pension and welfare funds, with longer waiting queues and scarcity in public services, etc. Hence why so many people are mad and see globalizatio…

> Standard of living has been steadily declining in most of Western Europe post 2009: stagnating wages, exploding costs of living, declining public healthcare, pension and welfare funds, with longer waiting queues and scarcity in public services, etc.

Actually this is because of how government financing works. Globalization, if anything, gave Europe another 50 years of growth (since this really should have become a critical problem in the 1980s) by providing very cheap products and services.

The economic theory ("capitalism") that the west supposedly lives by is that in times of excess (like the last 80 years, or since 2008 at the very least) the government saves up enormous amounts, because they can easily do that, so that when international trade causes problems again that built up wealth can buffer against shocks by having the government directly finance a significant portion of GDP.

The EU itself is a massive force of globalization of course, if countries join the EU they can go a lot deeper in debt. So really ... they shouldn't have done this (because if they join they can't avoid taking on extra debt).

Oh wait. European governments haven't saved - at all. In fact they are deep in debt. Well, then shocks are as unavoidable as they would otherwise be, BUT now there's nothing the government can do about it.

And while, yes, there is inherited wealth, frankly, it's a rounding error. Especially compared to the situation in "Asia". Not that I support inequality, I just don't understand why this is called out when it is such a small part of the problem. The problem is extreme government overspending through financialization. That is not an accident, it was (and is) deliberate policy.

The real problem is that labor "needs to become more efficient". A lot more of Europe's people need to work more and/or longer. Because underneath it all, it's not really a money problem. It's a problem that things aren't getting done because governments have built all of this on income tax - which has made many jobs impossible.

The situation is that we've come from a situation of growth, where everybody gets a little bit extra, and we're mostly just discussing who gets how much extra. Now, there's no growth. That means the only way pensioners get more is if unemployed people get less. The only way kids get more education is if we let more cancer patients die. The only way unemployment can go up is if we let the roads deteriorate ... And, because the governments are overfinancialized ...

I wouldn't worry about wealth. Wealth has to be tied up in ownership of resources. Houses, companies, ... And when everybody is forced to use less, the prices of houses, companies, ... where that wealth is tied up, will fall a lot more than wages will fall.

One thing I really hate is that people don't see what is coming. Now the argument is "we'll tax the rich". That will, of course, fail. If you steal all the wealth you've solved ... nothing. And ... you know what is a really easy, stupid job that can avoid all those tax problems? The army. And how will you finance that? "We'll just make those rich $neighboring_country assholes pay for it after we conquer them!"

In other words: what's coming in Europe is war. It'll take 2 decades, but it's coming.

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#88
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> standards of living and disposable income have been rising in the West and all over the world for 50 years or more Standard of living has been steadily declining in most of Western Europe post 2009: stagnating wages, exploding costs of living, declining public healthcare, pension and welfare funds, with longer waiting queues and scarcity in public services, etc. Hence why so many people are mad and see globalizatio…

> Standard of living has been steadily declining in most of Western Europe post 2009: stagnating wages, exploding costs of living, declining public healthcare, pension and welfare funds, with longer waiting queues and scarcity in public services, etc. Actually this is because of how government financing works. Globalization, if anything, gave Europe another 50 years of growth (since this really should have become a c…

Thank you; you summed it up perfectly. Globalization is the reason many Western countries still have the level of stability they do, since they can export their inflation to the developing world, while maintaining a consistent stream of cheap, abundant goods.

No amount of mass-produced goods from the developing world will ever be enough, as long as Western governments are committed to diluting the wealth of their people through QE.

The perfect example of a country playing globalization to their benefit is Singapore: started off manufacturing cheap plastic stuff; kept levering up, retraining their citizens, and aggressively pitching their country to businesses; maintained a levelheaded, business-friendly atmosphere; accumulated extremely deep reserves.

Singapore has like $2.5T in reserves, which is mind-boggling for a country of 6M that spends just 10-20% of GDP annually. In comparison, excluding the UAE, most of the Arab Gulf who literally dig up money from the ground, haven't accumulated that much in their sovereign wealth funds.

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#89
post #81
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends at which level. From what I understand, democracy in China exists for local elections (they are mostly in the hand of local small bourgeoisie, but you have a choice).

I doubt they get a choice of communist party or non communist party. I'm not sure any communist party in history has survived giving its grateful proletariat the chance to vote for something else?

It's the wrong way to look about that imho. That's not the impression chineese i've talked too had, and if the most rural, disenfranchised people i've ever met have the illusion of choice, like most people in western countries, i don't think you can reject that just by saying "but the CCP!".

First, and that wasn't my original point at all, you have a lot of different motions in the CCP, that you could easily compare to US 2 party system (it's even more democratic in a way because you have more choice between motions and those can align on specific policies).

But my point was about local elections. You don't vote for a party unless you're a militant: you vote for a person that you believe in, someone who will make choice for your village/small town.

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#90
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> standards of living and disposable income have been rising in the West and all over the world for 50 years or more Standard of living has been steadily declining in most of Western Europe post 2009: stagnating wages, exploding costs of living, declining public healthcare, pension and welfare funds, with longer waiting queues and scarcity in public services, etc. Hence why so many people are mad and see globalizatio…

> Standard of living has been steadily declining in most of Western Europe post 2009: stagnating wages, exploding costs of living, declining public healthcare, pension and welfare funds, with longer waiting queues and scarcity in public services, etc. Actually this is because of how government financing works. Globalization, if anything, gave Europe another 50 years of growth (since this really should have become a c…

>And when everybody is forced to use less, the prices of houses, companies, ... where that wealth is tied up, will fall a lot more than wages will fall.

If only house prices would fall.

>Globalization, if anything, gave Europe another 50 years of growth (since this really should have become a critical problem in the 1980s) by providing very cheap products and services.

My parents could barely afford a color TV or washing machine but they had their own home. What am I gonna do with cheap widgets from overseas when I can't afford a house? And which cheap services do you mean?

>The problem is extreme government overspending through financialization.

Maybe Brussels knows where that overspending is happening?

>A lot more of Europe's people need to work more and/or longer.

Younger generations of workers won't be liking this rug-/ladder-pull. And guess who they'll vote for to vent their frustrations that they've been strewed over? Another Austrian painter type of character. It's inevitable.

Post reply on HN