Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#161

Post by programmarchy » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 6:19 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #75

rubicon33 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At what point do we reward human accomplishment instead of throwing it all away to "luck"? I hear this all too often nowadays that any kind of success can always be attributed to luck and therefor you have a moral obligation to those less "lucky" than you. Don't get me wrong - I agree with the moral obligation to help those less lucky than you. I don't always agree with the looseness in which the word "luck" is appli…

Why do we need to reward people just for being the winners of the cosmic lottery? If you outperform what would be expected given your parental income, early education, intellect, and various other factors that are the result of mere chance, then maybe you should get a cookie. Otherwise, why celebrate the predictable outputs of predictable inputs?

Why are basketball players tall? Because tall people typically provide more value to winning basketball games.

Similarly, people with desirable traits like beauty and intelligence are rewarded (e.g. options for sexual reproduction, accumulation of wealth) because they have the best chance of advancing the fitness and survival of our species.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#162

Post by Swizec » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 6:20 PM UTC

Mikeb85 wrote: post #134

Swizec wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

For the record, I have no doubt you worked very hard and that you deserve all the success you have. I was only stating that it's impossible for all 7 billion people in the world to do what you did. The 'system' has its limits. There's a reason why in statistics you throw away outliers...

> There's a reason why in statistics you throw away outliers...

That's the thing. I'm not an outlier. It could be an effect of my social circle back home, but basically everyone has either moved out of the country, freelances for foreign companies, or works for foreign markets by proxy through a faux local startup/company whose investors and customers are abroad.

It's very much a "The whole generation is doing it because it's the only thing you can do"

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#163

Post by harryh » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 6:23 PM UTC

zghst wrote: post #156

harryh wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were the past lives of people so destitute that we needed to deliver an economic and social epiphany Yes. Billions of people that were without shelter & adequate food (not to mention health care or any sort of shot at a good education) now have access to such things. That is progress.

So you're saying thousands of years of societies all over the world, uninterrupted by Western intervention, were all useless until their coming payday by benevolent overlords?

I'm saying that the world is a better place when more people get to live indoors & have access to a healthy diet.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#164

Post by maxxxxx » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 6:25 PM UTC

justforFranz wrote: post #124

throwanem wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not to let Hillary Clinton off the hook, much of her appeal was about defending & protecting minorities (and women) from continued discrimination. And from what we've been shown during the campaign and since then, discrimination is alive and well - even if it doesn't affect you personally. But yeah, I doubt Hillary would have helped labor to generate the kind of pricing power they need to keep the society from caving…

"much of her appeal was about defending & protecting minorities (and women) from continued discrimination."

Making this your main platform is just a losing strategy.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#165

Post by Mikeb85 » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 6:26 PM UTC

Swizec wrote: post #159

Mikeb85 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It discounts his hard work to say it all came down to lucky brain genetics. How many people work hard their entire life only to not be rewarded? It's not like everyone who doesn't see success is lazy or doesn't work hard. Labourers work hard, tradesmen work hard, and yes, programmers work hard too. I live in Alberta right now, which is in the midst of an economic recession/depression. In my city unemployment is at…

> In my city unemployment is at 10% We can play that game. In my country youth unemployment rate (those under 30) is 13.7%. That ignores everyone who is studying until 27 because "they're not in the labor force". Overall unemployment rate is 9.8%. Again, discounting everyone who is "not in the labor force". As far as I know, we've been in an economic recession for the past 10 years or so. Before that we were in a "Ye…

Going from ~3% unemployment to ~10% overnight has caused a very noticeable change in the city. Yes, there are countries where this is the norm, just like it will probably be the norm here for the foreseeable future.

The point isn't that where I live is awful (it's really not), but that education and hard work doesn't guarantee success when there are macroeconomic forces working against you.

> We're one of the safest countries in Europe. I don't know why Americans love to lump crime together with poverty, but that's not how it works in Europe from what I can tell. Or at least in my part of Europe.

I'm willing to bet your country has a decent safety net, and that there's less 'poverty' than the US, even if your unemployment is higher.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#166

Post by anigbrowl » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 6:28 PM UTC

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…

Sanders vs. Trump would've been a much more interesting election

I agree, and it continues to perplex me that the Sanders campaign didn't put int he effort to develop a detailed policy agenda in parallel with the noble principles it was articulating.

You can blame people, if you like, for going with the sole candidate who at least pretended to give a shit about their problems

Oh please. I did not find Hillary Clinton a charismatic or especially empathic candidate, and her cautious incrementalism was a timid and unimaginative alternative to Trump's bold and dramatic (albeit shallow and stupid) vision. Clinton would have done far better to announce that her plan was to end poverty in America and establish a colony on Mars by 2030. People would have challenged that as ridiculous and impossible, of course, but it's no more absurd than the idea that we'd build a 20000 mile long wall along one border and get Mexico to pay for it.

What I'm disagreeing with is your suggestion that Clinton did not give a shit. She had a really detailed and well-rounded policy agenda whose primary fault was that it was too pragmatic and boring and cautious. It was not the right agenda for the times, but it's unjust to equate lack of vision with callous indifference. To say that is to accuse Mom of wanting you to starve because she insists you eat your vegetables. Sorry for the crude metaphor but the last election was in many ways a choice between Mom and Dad, and I think it's foolish to ignore the psychological dynamics that were in play.

I think we should also recall that she did manage to get 3 million more votes, but the GOP proved themselves to be superior electoral tacticians, possibly with help from some friends.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#167

Post by rayiner » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 6:29 PM UTC

programmarchy wrote: post #161

rayiner wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do we need to reward people just for being the winners of the cosmic lottery? If you outperform what would be expected given your parental income, early education, intellect, and various other factors that are the result of mere chance, then maybe you should get a cookie. Otherwise, why celebrate the predictable outputs of predictable inputs?

Why are basketball players tall? Because tall people typically provide more value to winning basketball games. Similarly, people with desirable traits like beauty and intelligence are rewarded (e.g. options for sexual reproduction, accumulation of wealth) because they have the best chance of advancing the fitness and survival of our species.

That's clearly not the reason, because birth rates go down with income: https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam....

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#168

Post by Mikeb85 » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 6:29 PM UTC

Swizec wrote: post #162

Mikeb85 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the record, I have no doubt you worked very hard and that you deserve all the success you have. I was only stating that it's impossible for all 7 billion people in the world to do what you did. The 'system' has its limits. There's a reason why in statistics you throw away outliers...

> There's a reason why in statistics you throw away outliers... That's the thing. I'm not an outlier. It could be an effect of my social circle back home, but basically everyone has either moved out of the country, freelances for foreign companies, or works for foreign markets by proxy through a faux local startup/company whose investors and customers are abroad. It's very much a "The whole generation is doing it bec…

You're not an outlier amongst your group of friends and acquaintances, but I'm willing to bet than even your circle, all combined, aren't statistically important.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#169

Post by harryh » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 6:29 PM UTC

programmarchy wrote: post #161

rayiner wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do we need to reward people just for being the winners of the cosmic lottery? If you outperform what would be expected given your parental income, early education, intellect, and various other factors that are the result of mere chance, then maybe you should get a cookie. Otherwise, why celebrate the predictable outputs of predictable inputs?

Why are basketball players tall? Because tall people typically provide more value to winning basketball games. Similarly, people with desirable traits like beauty and intelligence are rewarded (e.g. options for sexual reproduction, accumulation of wealth) because they have the best chance of advancing the fitness and survival of our species.

In modern American society birth rate is negatively correlated with household income[1]. By your standards we should be taking away money from those with desirable traits to encourage them to have more kids.

1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#170

Post by PatentTroll » Wed, Jun 21, 2017, 6:30 PM UTC

Kurtz79 wrote: post #103

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not good news for anyone in the USA or UK.

If your plan for ensuring the continued wealth and competitiveness of your country and population relies on other countries not to develop, than possibly it's not a great plan.

Not to mention a new population of knowledge workers will produce their own demand, so it's not a zero sum game by any means.