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

Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–176 of 176 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#171

Post by unprepare »

schoen wrote: post #76
tomlock wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you help me understand what those real anti-globalization reasons, that don't include receiving enough of the benefits, are?

I guess one possibility is if you think there's something very good or important about your society, culture, or economy, that you don't want to see change. Globalization means all sorts of pressures to change. People elsewhere who become aware of some aspect of your ways that upsets them may start political campaigns against it, or people in your own community may become interested in moving elsewhere or adopting va…

so.. NIMBYism?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#172

Post by lazaroclapp »

rfrank wrote: post #150
lazaroclapp wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough, but you really consider isolationism, trade barriers and anti-immigrant rhetoric either significantly more feasible than or preferable to trying to improve wealth and opportunity distribution? Do you think forcing companies to bring manufacturing to the U.S. and fire foreign workers will result in anything else than automation, loss of foreign markets for U.S. companies and even further poverty for these…

Yes, I think trade barriers are both more feasible and preferable. I perceive automation as a constant, it's happening no matter what. Enforcing a border adjustment tax is easier than trying to remove every international tax loophole a la the double Irish. How is reshoring not trying to improve wealth and opportunity distribution, just with the benefactor being Americans and not the factory town in SEA or Central/Sou…

You assume the rest of the world will remain open to you as you slam the door in their faces. At best you might end up in a situation where you don't have to compete with Shenzhen in your local market, but where all other markets are closed to you and open to them. Except now you won't even have access to collaborating with Shenzhen and other significant electronics hubs. I think you underestimate how much wealth moves into the U.S. because of globalization and has since the early 20th century. Now, you can argue that you won't go completely closed, but I think you will lose out in proportion to how much you close things, specially if you do it to the point that other countries find themselves needing to retaliate with their own trade barriers and alternative trade treaties, and even more so if at the same time you are also restricting flow of talent into the U.S.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#173

Post by jliptzin »

Shish2k wrote: post #108
jliptzin wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Email or text. Facebook itself is entirely unnecessary.

Why not just write a letter? Email and text are entirely unnecessary.

I will respond seriously even though I know you're trying to be facetious.

Email and text, like Facebook posts, are all instantaneous means of communication, unlike sending a letter. Email and text are actually better too, because I can send the article directly to the recipients I intend on sharing it with, as opposed to a Facebook post, which is like an email, except the To: field is populated with

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#174

Post by nosuchthing »

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #69
programmarchy wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. Forced fraternity is not liberty. I want decentralized, local decision making for my community. Globalization of state power takes things in the other direction.

>I want decentralized, local decision making for my community. Globalization of state power takes things in the other direction. I think we both agree that a centralized global hierarchy of power is impractical. But what about a modular decentralized network of local and non local communities across the globe working together in symbiosis?

   a modular decentralized network of local and non local 
  communities across the globe working together in symbiosis?
Okay, but how?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#175

Post by wu-ikkyu »

nosuchthing wrote: post #174
wu-ikkyu wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I want decentralized, local decision making for my community. Globalization of state power takes things in the other direction. I think we both agree that a centralized global hierarchy of power is impractical. But what about a modular decentralized network of local and non local communities across the globe working together in symbiosis?

a modular decentralized network of local and non local communities across the globe working together in symbiosis? Okay, but how?

Look at the FOSS community, they're already doing it.

The biggest barriers to scaling up are not technical but social (i.e. IP laws, legacy spaghetti tax and trade codes, prejudices).

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Community

#176

Post by rfrank »

lazaroclapp wrote: post #172
rfrank wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I think trade barriers are both more feasible and preferable. I perceive automation as a constant, it's happening no matter what. Enforcing a border adjustment tax is easier than trying to remove every international tax loophole a la the double Irish. How is reshoring not trying to improve wealth and opportunity distribution, just with the benefactor being Americans and not the factory town in SEA or Central/Sou…

You assume the rest of the world will remain open to you as you slam the door in their faces. At best you might end up in a situation where you don't have to compete with Shenzhen in your local market, but where all other markets are closed to you and open to them. Except now you won't even have access to collaborating with Shenzhen and other significant electronics hubs. I think you underestimate how much wealth mov…

> Now, you can argue that you won't go completely closed but I think you will lose out in proportion to how much you close things, specially if you do it to the point that other countries find themselves needing to retaliate with their own trade barriers and alternative trade treaties...

I agree with you the most here, and think it's true that unless a trade policy of that nature is implemented very carefully it could easily cause more harm than good. On the other hand, I think concerns about a complete walling off of collaboration/trade, or US manufacturers suddenly becoming unaware of international markets are overstated.

Manufacturers who have stayed alive already compete aggressively on price, which for them is more about materials management, relationships with suppliers (NXP, Samtec, Maxim, whoever), and process optimization. Component cost varies pretty dramatically by region, and how effectively a US based shop can navigate that is a big determining factor in how competitive they are with China/Mexico/etc.

From that perspective, most of the burden of something like a border adjustment tax is primarily on their customers, especially if they only do mid or low volume / high complexity runs (think medical/telecom/some consumer stuff). High volume / low complexity isn't something most US shops are geared for these days [1], so manufacturing will likely remain overseas and see a price increase in line with whatever policy change occurs. That probably won't hold true for high volume / high complexity (smartphones, etc) where cost of total assembly is higher. That seems to align with all the chatter about Foxconn, Samsung, Sharp, Toyota, etc. investing in US operations. [2][3]

The risks you mention are absolutely real, and my biggest hope at this stage is that any proposed changes are drafted and discussed openly, and given ample time for public review and comment.

1. http://www.assemblymag.com/articles/83764-managing-high-mix-...

2. https://www.macrumors.com/2017/02/08/sharp-lead-on-7-billion...

3. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/12/business/trump-asia-aliba...

Post reply on HN