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

191–200 of 221 posts

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#191

Post by anigbrowl »

msimpson wrote: post #46
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…

I'm against increased globalization because it erodes national sovereignty and undermines republican governments.

Precisely why I'm for it. I'm not in favor of replacing national with corporate sovereignty, though, or rather I'm in favor of putting limits on concentrations of sovereignty. Nationalism is a Bad Thing in my view.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#193

Post by anigbrowl »

throwanem wrote: post #186
anigbrowl wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Perceived as at least pretending to give a shit, then. Her policy agenda might have offered some real solutions for working-class problems - and it might not have; I no longer recall in enough detail to speak confidently without a refresher, but neoliberals have not traditionally been effective in this regard - but what played was "deplorables".

I wholeheartedly agree on this - it was very much a matter of perception. What I was saying in a very long-winded way was that if you ignored all the personality factors and just scored candidates on the policy agenda, the Clinton one was both good (in terms of being thought out in detail) and popular with voters.

Like, the exact same set of policies would have won handily if they had just been offered by somebody else. Martha Stewart for example XD

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#194

Post by Swizec »

anigbrowl wrote: post #190
Swizec wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I'm also European. Which group has it worst in your country, and why?

Good question!

Overall the Roma population probably has it worst. Followed closely by the immigrants.

I'm not a good judge of Why because I don't have good insight. The Roma seem to have your usual problems of being below the poverty line, a culture that heavily discourages improving your lot in life, and a strong culture of expecting govenment handouts. If you asked a Roma I'm sure their explanation would be different, this is what it looks like from the outside.

The immigrants, well, they're immigrants. New culture new life new jobs low prospects due to social standing and so on. Immigrants always seem to struggle.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#195

Post by anigbrowl »

dragonwriter wrote: post #176
anigbrowl wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dist…

With an anti-globalist Democratic candidate, there would have been be no substantial Perot support.

Maybe so, but then the Bush argument would have been 'did I not just defeat Communism and win a great victory in Iraq? Your labor provincialism would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.'

Being a resident of California I think the country would have been better off with Jerry Brown, but his expression of support for Jesse Jackson at the wrong time put paid to that.

I've got to say as a Euro that while I support that sort of pro-labor welfare state agenda on a policy level, I feel Democrats in the have a bad habit of overestimating its popularity at the strategic level where elections are won. There large currents of irrationality and historical animus at play in the American electorate that the Republicans have been better at leveraging into electoral results even though those same factors are a disadvantage in governance.

This discussion is sort of getting into the weeds and I have other stuff I want to do today, but I'd be delighted to follow up if you wanted to drop me a note via gmail.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#196

Post by anigbrowl »

Swizec wrote: post #194
anigbrowl wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also European. Which group has it worst in your country, and why?

Good question! Overall the Roma population probably has it worst. Followed closely by the immigrants. I'm not a good judge of Why because I don't have good insight. The Roma seem to have your usual problems of being below the poverty line, a culture that heavily discourages improving your lot in life, and a strong culture of expecting govenment handouts. If you asked a Roma I'm sure their explanation would be differe…

That's fine, it was the shallow reaction I was after. I've had the benefits of being in the US >20 years to observe things from multiple perspectives.

Basically what inhibits a person from Atlanta is not their legal or technical disadvantages, but those perceptual ones - large parts of society, and often police in particular, holding prior assumptions of criminal disposition and unwillingness to better themselves.

I'm Irish and we have very few Roma people but we have a similar and related ethnosocial subgroup. Imagine how difficult it would be for a 'gypsy' person to attain significant political power in our home countries, and how even if elected/appointed to a position of responsibility everything they did would be undermined by attacks on their heritage, regardless of their legal or intellectual eligibility for the role.

I noticed very soon after arrival in the US that I was assumed to have much greater potential than members of disfavored ethnosocial minorities. I say ethnosocial because I'm thinking of a former roommate from Mauritius who felt that his French accent and foreign origin gave him substantial social advantages vs American blacks whose negative qualifiers were already assumed.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#197

Post by harryh »

zghst wrote: post #174
harryh wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" t…

I don't think you have a clear understanding what it's like to live in extreme poverty. It's not just a different way of living. It's awful.

Children routinely die due to easily preventable diseases or starvation. Simple infections are life threatening for adults. Hunger is constant. Exposure to extreme elements is common. Life expectancies are short. Individuals lack meaningful control over their own lives and have little or no ability to improve their situation in the world.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#198

Post by throwanem »

anigbrowl wrote: post #193
throwanem wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perceived as at least pretending to give a shit, then. Her policy agenda might have offered some real solutions for working-class problems - and it might not have; I no longer recall in enough detail to speak confidently without a refresher, but neoliberals have not traditionally been effective in this regard - but what played was "deplorables".

I wholeheartedly agree on this - it was very much a matter of perception. What I was saying in a very long-winded way was that if you ignored all the personality factors and just scored candidates on the policy agenda, the Clinton one was both good (in terms of being thought out in detail) and popular with voters. Like, the exact same set of policies would have won handily if they had just been offered by somebody el…

Or Bernie Sanders. But it was "Hillary's turn", and here we are.

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#199

Post by zghst »

harryh wrote: post #197
zghst wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" t…

I don't think you have a clear understanding what it's like to live in extreme poverty. It's not just a different way of living. It's awful. Children routinely die due to easily preventable diseases or starvation. Simple infections are life threatening for adults. Hunger is constant. Exposure to extreme elements is common. Life expectancies are short. Individuals lack meaningful control over their own lives and have…

I have been on nearly every end of the economical scale, especially the lower end. I know what it can be like to have suffered, but one solution to a problem does not mean it is the best solution

Re: Populism and the Economics of Globalization [pdf]

#200

Post by harryh »

zghst wrote: post #199
harryh wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you have a clear understanding what it's like to live in extreme poverty. It's not just a different way of living. It's awful. Children routinely die due to easily preventable diseases or starvation. Simple infections are life threatening for adults. Hunger is constant. Exposure to extreme elements is common. Life expectancies are short. Individuals lack meaningful control over their own lives and have…

I have been on nearly every end of the economical scale, especially the lower end. I know what it can be like to have suffered, but one solution to a problem does not mean it is the best solution

At no point in this thread have I said it was the best possible solution.
Post reply on HN