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

“The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”

committees.parliament.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 87 posts

Re: “The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”

#51

Post by _3u10 »

psacawa wrote: post #38
cs702 wrote: post #9

Reads like a slogan for anti-globalization and nationalism. As with all slogans, it ignores important details that contradict it. Over the past four decades, our current global economic system, promoting economic integration and interdependence between countries, has lifted billions out of poverty.[a][b] Billions. No sensible discussion of globalization can ignore that . The current backlash is not against globalizat…

> The current backlash is not against globalization per se, but against: ... I cannot speak about the UK, but in general this isn't all that people are dissatisfied with about globalization. Very many are angry about the loss of a sense of home. If you examine the situation in purely material terms, you won't observe or measure those feelings. For others, the loss of home extends to a loss of community, which extends…

A rig worker in the arctic explained it succinctly to me, I don’t care how many people it’s lifted out of poverty I care whether it’s better for me and my friends and family and right now it isn’t.

For software engineers globalization is wonderful for many in the economy it isn’t.

Re: “The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”

#52

Post by throwaway894345 »

cs702 wrote: post #9

Reads like a slogan for anti-globalization and nationalism. As with all slogans, it ignores important details that contradict it. Over the past four decades, our current global economic system, promoting economic integration and interdependence between countries, has lifted billions out of poverty.[a][b] Billions. No sensible discussion of globalization can ignore that . The current backlash is not against globalizat…

I don’t think people are just peeved that authoritarian regimes have passively become powerful, but that western nations are actively subsidizing them directly at the expense of our domestic middle classes (trading the welfare of our own citizens to empower authoritarian regimes and to pollute the environment).

Re: “The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”

#53

Post by cs702 »

LargeWu wrote: post #44
cs702 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should not be reliant on fossil fuels for energy, period. There's a mountain of scientific evidence showing that extracting, transporting, storing, and burning all that poisonous crap is very bad for humankind. The sooner we move to other sources (fusion (!), solar, wind, etc.), the better for humankind. However, companies that make money from fossil fuels don't want that, and for the past four decades they've had…

You're missing the point a bit. Replace energy with food, water, medicine, microchips, or any other commodities necessary for modern life and the point still stands.

I think I understood the point. The counterpoint I was trying to express, in response, is that this is a consequence of allowing high-concentration of market power in many of those commodities, nationally and globally, without any checks and balances.

Re: “The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”

#54

Post by rufus_foreman »

celeritascelery wrote: post #7

While there is certainly some truth and wisdom to this view, it also worries me. I see the increasing globalization and interdependence of the modern world as one of the major reasons for the decrease in armed conflicts. You are a lot less likely to attack someone who is a trade partner. There is a saying that “there has never been an armed conflict between two nations that both had a McDonald’s”. Russia has broken t…

>> There is a saying that "there has never been an armed conflict between two nations that both had a McDonald’s". Russia has broken that, but that is case where the exception proves the rule.

That was from a 1999 book by Thomas Friedman.

"Shortly after the book was published, NATO bombed Yugoslavia. On the first day of the bombing, McDonald's restaurants in Belgrade were demolished by angry protesters and were rebuilt only after the bombing ended. In the 2000 edition of the book, Friedman argued that this exception proved the rule"

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_peace#Golden_arches...

You also have the Russo-Georgian war, Russia's seizure of Crimea, and various other conflicts depending on your definition of war - US invasion of Panama, conflict between Israel and Lebanon, the Kargil War.

In general, if you are relying on something Thomas Friedman said for your argument, you are almost certainly wrong.

Re: “The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”

#55

Post by throwaway894345 »

cs702 wrote: post #25
HL33tibCe7 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But let’s also not throw out the baby with the bathwater in the _opposite_ direction. We should not be reliant on Russia for energy to such an extent that our economy gets destroyed when a Russian tyrant goes on an ego trip. We should not be allowing Chinese entities to own our energy infrastructure. We should not be allowing foreign nationals to buy up massive amounts of property in London with shady money, distorti…

We should not be reliant on fossil fuels for energy, period. There's a mountain of scientific evidence showing that extracting, transporting, storing, and burning all that poisonous crap is very bad for humankind. The sooner we move to other sources (fusion (!), solar, wind, etc.), the better for humankind. However, companies that make money from fossil fuels don't want that, and for the past four decades they've had…

Yes, but this is entirely at odds with globalization. A primary reason we outsource production to developing countries is to exploit their lack of regulation (including environmental regulation). If the UK transitions to green energy, they’re not subject to Putin, but they’re still subject to Xi and they are still contributing substantially to emissions. Moreover, transitioning to green energy will probably create reliance on rare earth metals and other minerals that will likely be controlled by despots.

Re: “The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”

#56

Post by rufus_foreman »

Aachen wrote: post #36
thfuran wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, there are some dumb sayings, but I really think that one tops the list.

I've never understood it actually. What does the author mean when using "proves the rule", is it somehow proving it by it being a clear exception with special circumstances (somehow that rarely seems the case) or are they just acknowledging the incorrectness of the rule in a joke-y manner?

The original usage would be to describe something like a sign that says "No Parking on Sundays" as being proof that parking is allowed on other days.

Typically when it is used now it means "I'm wrong but I'm still right".

Re: “The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”

#57

Post by cs702 »

tacitusarc wrote: post #48
cs702 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should not be reliant on fossil fuels for energy, period. There's a mountain of scientific evidence showing that extracting, transporting, storing, and burning all that poisonous crap is very bad for humankind. The sooner we move to other sources (fusion (!), solar, wind, etc.), the better for humankind. However, companies that make money from fossil fuels don't want that, and for the past four decades they've had…

Reliance on other nations for critical resources is a separate concern from technological mechanisms for acquiring those resources, even if the later may help solve the former.

I think reliance on highly-concentrated markets (globally/nationally) for any critical resource is the bigger issue.

Re: “The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”

#58

Post by throwaway894345 »

LargeWu wrote: post #49
mozman wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I support nationalism, we have many domestic problems we must fix before we start fixing other countries. If we have to go to war than so be it. People will always argue and there will always be consequences of these arguments.

How many domestic problems in developed countries are the result of income inequality? Probably most of them. Poor education, poor wages, poor health(care)...these exist because of the billionaire class extracting wealth from the economy. Those problems aren't going to be solved by going to war.

Income inequality is downstream from globalism (middle class jobs get exported), so I think you’re making his point?

Re: “The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”

#59

Post by FpUser »

boppo1 wrote: post #47
FpUser wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"many domestic problems we must fix before we start fixing other countries." >"If we have to go to war than so be it." The more I look at these two statements the more I think that someone would benefit from having their head examined.

Yeah, bad idea to go to war unless your shit at home is already together. Wars are expensive. I think a lot of the domestic turmoil in the US can be linked to our useless wars in the ME. Could have used all that steel and those men to build stuff here: hospitals, schools, trains and so on. Bush & cheney did enormously more damage to the US than Trump. Not that I liked Trump at all.

>"Yeah, bad idea to go to war unless your shit at home is already together."

So if your country doing fine and all "shit is together" it is ok to start a war? What is fucking wrong with people.

Post reply on HN