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

171–180 of 221 posts

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#171

Post by harryh »

rayiner wrote: post #167
programmarchy wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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... .

Jinx!

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#172

Post by grondilu »

ashark wrote: post #133
grondilu wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you can't give people a decent living first, they will revolt Nobody is supposed to "give them" anything. They are supposed to be responsible adults, and as such they are supposed to earn their living themselves. If for some reason they can not be satisfied with what they earn, and if they react by "revolting", that is with violence, then unfortunately the only sensible thing to do is to defend the rest of socie…

> Nobody is supposed to "give them" anything. They are supposed to be responsible adults, and as such they are supposed to earn their living themselves. The point is that the system shifted to "give" some people more, and "give" others less. The winners in these cases were, by and large, already better off than the losers, with the result that political power also shifted (further) in the winners' favor (this is all…

> The economic system we collectively create absolutely "gives" and "takes" from different groups, all the time. The notion that it's fine for one group to shift the rules to help themselves and harm others, but it's not fine for the harmed to try to retaliate (even via a voting-driven "revolt") is silly.

That's a very "class conflict" approach in the Marxist sense. It's not clear this was what was argued in the post I was answering to.

In any case, that analysis is obviously highly political, and the least that can be said is that not everybody agrees with it.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#173

Post by PatentTroll »

grasshopperpurp wrote: post #129
mozumder wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people against globalization aren't the poor making $30k/year. It's the middle-class making $80k-$100k/year doing routine work. Globalization does disproportionately affects the poor the most, but the poor still end up voting for globalist neoliberal Democrats because they offer social services that solve much of the economic disparity problem that globalization creates, such as food stamps, universal health care…

There are degrees to things, and wealth inequality in the US is the worst it's been since right before the Great Depression. The idea that wealth inequality on this level is 'no big deal' is as stupid as it gets.

OP sets up the straw man of "anybody against any inequality must be advocating perfect equality" - which is hogwash. By OP's logic, feudalism is perfectly fine because it accentuates the differences between serfs and kings. Or hell, even slavery is Ok. What reasonable people have to start to appreciate is that everything isn't black and white, there are shades of gray and we can have meaningful disagreements about where the lines are drawn.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#174

Post by zghst »

harryh wrote: post #163
zghst wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But what kind of indoors, up-to-code Western kinds of indoors, or simple grass or adobe huts that the existing people are more than happy to live in? Time and time again, we Westerners look at other cultures as savage and depraved for not having the same lifestyle as we. This is going to lead us to our doom, trying to be a total savior.

I firmly believe that we in the past did not have a responsibility to "educate" the various indigenous peoples of the planet, however due to past measures existing cultural structures were completely decimated, people are totally reliant on the West. We have interjected ourselves to every facet of the globe, continually introducing technologies and economic patterns that many cultures cannot afford or scale, that is these countries end up in massive poverty (measured by Western standards), because they are trying to adapt a complete economic and technological system that they had no part in developing.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#175

Post by programmarchy »

rayiner wrote: post #167
programmarchy wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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... .

Not sure what you're responding to.

How are you arguing that people who are beautiful don't have more options for mate selection, or that intelligent people aren't more likely to accumulate wealth?

I understand the difference between r vs K selection, but that seems like a non sequitur in response to my previous post.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#176

Post by dragonwriter »

anigbrowl wrote: post #158
dragonwriter wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I somewhat agree that let's not forget that third-wayism was a response by the Democrats to being locked out of executive power at the federal level for the previous 12 years, or all but 4 of the previous 24 years if you want to look back to the 1960s. When the choices were 'never get any power again' or 'accept the dominance of market economics and try to operate within that framework' it's hard to blame them for ch…

> I somewhat agree that let's not forget that third-wayism was a response by the Democrats to being locked out of executive power at the federal level for the previous 12 years,

Sure, it made some sense in “I want my party to have this office today” terms, it just was tremendously destructive to the long-term prospects of the party and it's relationship to the grassroots base, and to the key policy interest that distinguished the party from the other major party.

> My memory of the 1992 election is that Clinton managed to exploit general dissatisfaction with a relatively minor recession and conservative disenchantment (and consequent core voter apathy) with Bush's pragmatic decision to hike taxes, along with the split vote on the right created by Ross Perot's candidacy.

Perot's candidacy was almost entirely anti-NAFTA, split the anti-Bush vote, and was fueled by the major-party candidate consensus on NAFTA. With an anti-globalist Democratic candidate, there would have been be no substantial Perot support. Clinton didn't leverage Perot splitting conservative votes, he fueled Perot taking anti-NAFTA votes that had no major party candidate to go to.

> I absolutely understand why the progressive left felt betrayed by the Clinton-Carville machine, but as an outside observer I think the notion that the Democrats would have got anywhere with a Eugene Debs style democratic socialist in 1992 (or any of many similar pipe dreams) is delusional.

The alternatives to Clinton in 1992 weren't Debs-style socialist, they were pre-Third Way pro-labor welfare state Democrats like the vast majority of the party's then-current Congressional delegation.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#177

Post by api »

dragonwriter wrote: post #148
api wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've started thinking of it this way: "It's better to reign in hell." Poverty is worse than most natural disasters and worse than most of the predicted consequences of climate change. I'm willing to bet that the infant mortality rate in Miami is lower during a category five hurricane than it is in a crushingly poor society in perfect weather. People will burn the world to escape poverty. It's better to reign in hell.…

> Poverty is worse than most natural disasters and worse than most of the predicted consequences of climate change. Exacerbation of poverty, both absolutely and relative, is among the predicted consequences of climate change.

I am discussing perception and social behavior, not reality per se. That may be the case but that's not how people see it when their jobs are being destroyed.

Wealth also brings the luxury of long-sighted thinking. When you're poor the only concern you have is getting out of poverty right now.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#178

Post by PatentTroll »

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?

This. There is no maxim that this is the only way to increase living standards, or a good way, or a just or moral way. It benefits large corporations in the US, though, and consumers through the availability of underpriced goods, all on the backs of some faceless brown people somewhere around the world, so its anointed as the best thing since sliced bread

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#179

Post by programmarchy »

harryh wrote: post #169
programmarchy wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

To clarify, by 'options for sexual reproduction' I meant a better selection of mates, not the amount of children.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#180

Post by anigbrowl »

ragequitregrets wrote: post #87
refurb wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asian Americans have a higher per capita income than whites. Does that mean Asians are no longer discriminated against?

Is this under the assumption that whites aren't discriminated against? Because ooooooweeee is that a invalid assumption. Especially in this day and age. I feel as if I'm not allowed to talk anymore because my white male view is suppressing the minorities. And I'm not joking or being snarky, I've been made to feel this way through several racist (towards white people GASP!) remarks.

I feel as if I'm not allowed to talk anymore

I understand that. But have you considered the possibility that people in other categories have felt that way the whole time, and have only recently reached a level of confidence and/or frustration that they're willing to be openly dismissive of your viewpoint? Put another way, this not-so-great but relatively new reality for you has been the norm for many other groups of people and they're sick of it and have stopped playing along with it. That's not your fault, and indeed it is frustrating to be treated as a category member instead of an individual, but the discrimination those people previously experienced wasn't their fault either.

Post reply on HN