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

Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

drodrik.scholar.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 221 posts

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#111

Post by pillowkusis »

lettergram wrote: post #67
pillowkusis wrote: post #2

I don't like the use of the word "predictable". I would qualify this populist uprising as a Black Swan[0], and as Taleb describes in his book, one of the common reactions to a black swan is to rationalize it's obvious predictability after the fact. Were there logical reasons to believe this populist uprising would occur? Of course (and this paper does a good job exploring them). Was it predictable? I don't know. By a…

The whole idea of a "black swan" is bullshit in my opinion. In his book, nearly all events were predictable if the right people were consulted, research was done, or if people even looked at data. The problem, is the mainstream media, and even educated researchers miss the mark regularly. To me it appears most poeple assume they know better or listening to the wrong experts. That's actually the whole reason I created…

Sentiment analysis based on media is going to make you even more vulnerable to black swans. Black swans come from our collective blind spot -- if the media is reporting it (with a correct sentiment), it's by definition not on our blind spot.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#112

Post by haltingthoughts »

elihu wrote: post #91
rayiner wrote: post #15

The discussion on 4-9 is worth looking at. Among policymakers on both sides of the aisle, there is this reflexive recitation that trade increases economic efficiency. While that's true, that assumes the purpose of national policy is to increase economic efficiency. To the contrary, the mandate of politicians in a Democracy is to improve the welfare of the majority of voters. Likewise, the discussion on 13-15 is impor…

It's also important to consider that reducing or eliminating tariffs is effectively a tax cut for large corporations. Whether trade increases economic efficiency is kind of beside the point, even if we were to agree that economic efficiency is something that national policy ought to attempt to increase. Eliminating income tax would probably increase economic efficiency as well, but we don't do it because the money to…

Why on corporations? Most of the burden is passed on to consumers in the form of more expensive goods.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#113

Post by rayiner »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #68
rayiner wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Globalization unlocks the potential of top 5% types stuck in underdeveloped countries. At the same time, it often undermines the prosperity of bottom 2/3 types born in wealthy countries. As a matter of democratic theory, however, the political establishment's duty is to the majority of the populace in their own country, not to untapped potential in other countries.

Ethically and pragmatically, that is a fantastic idea. Maybe countries should all be walled up. Google should work only in the US and there should not be any exports or imports. Of course, colonialism did not bring any advantages to the West or cause bad things in Asia or Africa.

It's not a matter of having more or less foreign intercourse. It's what is the guiding policy behind those policy decisions? In a democracy, the guiding policy typically should be "this policy will make the majority of Americans better off," not "this policy is dictated by economic theory," or "this policy is the right/compassionate thing to do."

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#114

Post by claudiulodro »

Brakenshire wrote: post #40
deepnotderp wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not even the "1%", it's the "1% of the 1%", Zuckerberg is great no doubt, but does he really deserve 2000X as much as a high level machine learning researcher? The issue is that ~6-8 people in the world own the same amount of wealth as the bottom 40% of the world, that's not because of eight software engineers making $100K.

> The issue is that ~6-8 people in the world own the same amount of wealth as the bottom 40% of the world, Broadly speaking, isn't this because the bottom 40% of the world don't have savings? The statistic seems misleading. You could have 1 dollar, and you'd have greater wealth than more or less everyone in the world with a mortgage.

A mortgage generally comes with a house (an illiquid asset).

If you have a buck you do have more wealth than pretty much anyone with student loans, though.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#115

Post by Swizec »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #30
Swizec wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I for one support globalization because it's how me and all my friends escaped the fate of our parents. Working all your life for $20k/year in a tiny little country in Europe. Without globalization we'd all be fucked. If we could get skills and jobs that rival Bay Area or are in Bay Area from half the world away, why can't someone from Atlanta? What's stopping them? What, realistically, are the missinh opportunities…

So you were lucky (to be smart enough) to out-compete your peers and a bunch of Americans. By definition not everyone can achieve this success (as it's based on competition), so it does nothing to alleviate inequality on a scale that matters.

> So you were lucky (to be smart enough)

Sure didn't feel lucky when I was a troubled youth who failed most of his classes in high school and floundered around in college, ultimately not graduating.

I guess one thing I did have that my American peers do not, is access to high quality free education and a cultural expectation that it's okay to be a student into your late 20s. I really lucked out on that one. That is true.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#116

Post by dragonwriter »

maxxxxx wrote: post #79
manyoso wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me the real story here is that despite the ascendance of right wing populism the GOP in D.C. is doing the exact same thing it has always done : tax cuts for the rich while shrinking services for the rest. That and deregulating wall street. Sure, the GOP in D.C. doesn't give two pennies about climate change, more parks, more air, fair treatment, or the rest, but they also are doing nothing different that will subs…

That's the genius of the GOP. They can motivate the working class while pretty much every policy they make is against the working class.

> That's the genius of the GOP. They can motivate the working class while pretty much every policy they make is against the working class.

That's kind of been easier since 1992, since Third Wayism means the Democrats at the Presidential level (which gets outsized media attention and often shapes perception of downballot races) and often (though less consistently) at lower levels aren't even trying to offer a credible alternative for the bulk of the working class on some of the most salient issues.

It's easier to get people to vote against their own interests when no one is offering the clear opportunity to vote for those interests.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#117

Post by manyoso »

throwanem wrote: post #106
manyoso wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And when the hoi polloi start to catch on they just dangle some more red meat identity politics at them. "No, it isn't us, it is all the other people who are taking your American Dream away!" When you think about it, isn't it remarkable how well this works that a rich billionaire blowhard from New York City convinces the hoi polloi that he is one of them?

This is much easier to accomplish - perhaps only even possible to accomplish - when the hoi polloi don't see any meaningful prospect of worthwhile change from the only other party that can get a candidate elected. As I find myself reiterating every time the subject arises here - it's not possible accurately to understand Trump's electoral victory without reference to the DNC's own internal politics and their gravely…

This is the argument that Trump voters knew he was likely a con, but at least he was paying lip service. This is belied by the continued support since when he has done the exact opposite of what he said. He's revealed himself to be that con and yet his voters still enthusiastically support him.

No, Occam's razor: this is just tribalism. He's convinced them that he is on their side reality be damned. It is too painful and hopeless to countenance the other.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#118

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

Jtsummers wrote: post #39
Mikeb85 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and you can fix it by fixing poverty. Not by calling poor people racists.

Poor people aren't racist (well, some are, racism knows no class boundaries), but many minorities are in poverty due to racist policies (or their families were pushed into poverty by said policies and the poverty cycle is incredibly hard to break out of, even if the policies have been largely removed or mitigated).

Your parenthetical actually supports the point you're debating against: if the racist policies have been fixed and what's lingering is the effects of poverty caused by historic racism, wouldn't the solution be to address the poverty?

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#119

Post by Mikeb85 »

haltingthoughts wrote: post #65
Mikeb85 wrote: post #38

The biggest problem with Globalisation is that it doesn't contribute to global economic development. It merely outsources manual labour and less profitable/desirable work from rich countries to less-developed countries because of the price difference in labour. Growing up I always imagined a world where the big cities of Africa could be just as developed as those in Europe, Asia or America. Instead we've been given a…

You sure that globalism has contributed nothing to the development of poor countries? The number of people in poverty has decreased drastically over the past half century. Do you have any other candidates other than trade liberalization? https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty/

That's a terrible definition of extreme poverty. Also, inequality matters. It's nice that the crumbs poor people receive are getting bigger, but things like social unrest, wars, revolutions, crime, famine are due to inequality and unequal distribution of resources. Being poor isn't a problem by itself, it's the other things that come with it which are a problem.

Having cell phones and making more than $1.90 per day didn't prevent the revolutions in Libya and Syria, and subsequent deaths/displacement of millions. Actual development and reducing inequality is massively important.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#120

Post by bobjordan »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #30
Swizec wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I for one support globalization because it's how me and all my friends escaped the fate of our parents. Working all your life for $20k/year in a tiny little country in Europe. Without globalization we'd all be fucked. If we could get skills and jobs that rival Bay Area or are in Bay Area from half the world away, why can't someone from Atlanta? What's stopping them? What, realistically, are the missinh opportunities…

So you were lucky (to be smart enough) to out-compete your peers and a bunch of Americans. By definition not everyone can achieve this success (as it's based on competition), so it does nothing to alleviate inequality on a scale that matters.

I spent quite some time in my younger years thinking about the logic you've presented here. But the fallacy is presenting that intelligence is wholly dependent on luck. Sure, luck is a factor, but the winners are never going to accept the argument that they won by luck. Further, they are correct. In the general case, life's result depends on decisions. No matter where you start, you have decisions to make. Those decisions decide your outcome. Decisions are a function of ideas, action, and luck. Outcome = Decisions(ideas, action, luck). If you try to ignore the ideas and action inputs, no winners will ever accept your argument.
Post reply on HN