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

Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

lrb.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 96 posts

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#61

Post by grafmax »

rootjknak wrote: post #40
ryeats wrote: post #32

Would be more interesting if someone came at this debate from a game theory perspective with bad actors ignoring IP laws, manipulating currency values and implementing tariffs through policies that aren't directly taxing products but restricting who can play in markets. Yes tariffs are bad in a vacuum and I am not saying this article is false even when it's strawmanning some arguments to make it's case but it's seems…

It mentions it in the article, which technically references Lighthizer's book passage: " ‘A crucial mistake,’ according to Lighthizer, had been to let China into the WTO and treat it as just another country like America’s free-market allies. The result was that millions of well-paid jobs in US manufacturing disappeared, as more and more work was outsourced and offshored. " A close examination of the passage appears t…

Global North corporations actively lobbied for China’s membership in the WTO because expanding the labor pool would lead to higher profits at the expense of the working class, and they were right.

This has created a cascading effect: rising wealth inequality has fomented distrust in institutions; this in turn has manifested as right wing populism. It’s right wing populism that is dismantling western democracies, not China.

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#62

Post by watwut »

churchill wrote: post #27
watwut wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have seen multiple stats and farmers were never on top of suicides. It was either miners or doctors (anesthesiologist the most).

It's so prevalent that Wikipedia has dedicated pages for specifically American, [0] Indian, [1] and Canadian [2] farmer suicides. In the US, farmer suicide rates are 3.5* the general population. The rate for the general population is between 2-4%, so for farmers it'd be 7%-14%, comparable to the rate for anesthesiologists, at 7%-17%. For physicians, it's just over 1%. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_sui…

And yet, the top list of suicide per occupation do not have farmers. Miners, doctors, construction are higher.

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#63

Post by geysersam »

churchill wrote: post #57
geysersam wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But many of the jobs "lost" were replaced by jobs that produces less value and has worse salary. That's only natural. If there was a higher value job that could be done, it would already have replaced the "lost" job before it was lost. We can turn and twist and look at it from many different angles but the conclusion is the same: Global economic output increased and economic inequality in rich countries increased. I…

Yet, the average American can afford abundantly more stuff now, compared to when these jobs were in the US? How does that compute? Buying 31-inch CRT TV in the 1990s would have set you back somewhere between $2-$3k, adjusted for inflation. But, because it's been outsourced to where it can be made more efficiently, a 32-inch HD TV costs just $99 from Amazon. This is just one product. I could go on and on. If you want…

It's hard to make a fair comparison of "living standards" in different times.

What would an iphone be worth in the 1990s? $20 million? Does that mean every American is now a millionaire? Not really.

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#65

Post by porridgeraisin »

churchill wrote: post #18
xterminator wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we should live a more fulfilling life even if it costs luxuries. Less globalization, more localization. Economics should stop having the final say on everything.

Taken to its natural conclusion, your idea is that we should farm our own wheat, thresh it, grind it into flour, make our own bread, and build our own homes. Should we do that? If jobs can't be exported to specialists who can do it at scale in Asia, Europe, etc. then there should be no specialization at all! Your logic demands that everyone fend for themselves primitively, which will lead to a collapse of the abundan…

| sed 's/natural conclusion/absolute extreme'

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#67

Post by [deleted] »

grafmax wrote: post #61
rootjknak wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It mentions it in the article, which technically references Lighthizer's book passage: " ‘A crucial mistake,’ according to Lighthizer, had been to let China into the WTO and treat it as just another country like America’s free-market allies. The result was that millions of well-paid jobs in US manufacturing disappeared, as more and more work was outsourced and offshored. " A close examination of the passage appears t…

Global North corporations actively lobbied for China’s membership in the WTO because expanding the labor pool would lead to higher profits at the expense of the working class, and they were right. This has created a cascading effect: rising wealth inequality has fomented distrust in institutions; this in turn has manifested as right wing populism. It’s right wing populism that is dismantling western democracies, not…

[deleted]

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#68

Post by potato3732842 »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #54
rootjknak wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It mentions it in the article, which technically references Lighthizer's book passage: " ‘A crucial mistake,’ according to Lighthizer, had been to let China into the WTO and treat it as just another country like America’s free-market allies. The result was that millions of well-paid jobs in US manufacturing disappeared, as more and more work was outsourced and offshored. " A close examination of the passage appears t…

>America’s free-market allies No market is truly free. Once you have a free market it very quickly stops being free as dominant players monopolize it and shape the rules of the game causing the government to (sometimes) intervene to counter it and make it more fair, but it is never "free".

>dominant players monopolize it and shape the rules of the game causing the government to (sometimes) intervene to counter it and make it more fair

The dominant players shape it in large part by getting the government to intervene shaping rules to their benefit making it less fair. Naturally everyone with a brain hates this so there's a constant give take where the incumbent interests allow just enough competition, make the barriers to entry just barely surmountable that there's a strong enough trickle of new entrants that they can point and say "look, anyone can do it" and just enough idiots will believe it that they keep their heads.

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#69

Post by imtringued »

FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #22
churchill wrote: post #4

I read the book referenced - Robert Lightizer's No Trade Is Free: Changing Course, Taking on China, and Helping America's Workers - and it was eye-opening, if somewhat misguided. In it, the author blames China's industrial ascent for America's deindustrialization, the hollowing out of cities like Detroit, the fentanyl crisis, the looming challenge to American power in the Pacific, the intimidation of America's allies…

The problem with China is that it is not a level playing field. Not even close. If they were an open market, then you would not see as big of a trade imbalance. They are predatory, manipulative and duplicitous. The ideas behind globalism was to promote peace through trade and it worked for a while until China used it to try to become an empire.

Why would you expect anyone to play fair?

The Brettons Woods inevitable collapse was known when it was introduced, but it was implemented anyway because it unfairly advantaged the US. Meanwhile Keynes proposed balanced trade via his Bancor System. This would have addressed abuse by any specific nation, but the US didn't want it, because it would have limited their ability to be abusive as well.

Re: Exile Economics: If Globalisation Fails

#70

Post by imtringued »

churchill wrote: post #57
geysersam wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But many of the jobs "lost" were replaced by jobs that produces less value and has worse salary. That's only natural. If there was a higher value job that could be done, it would already have replaced the "lost" job before it was lost. We can turn and twist and look at it from many different angles but the conclusion is the same: Global economic output increased and economic inequality in rich countries increased. I…

Yet, the average American can afford abundantly more stuff now, compared to when these jobs were in the US? How does that compute? Buying 31-inch CRT TV in the 1990s would have set you back somewhere between $2-$3k, adjusted for inflation. But, because it's been outsourced to where it can be made more efficiently, a 32-inch HD TV costs just $99 from Amazon. This is just one product. I could go on and on. If you want…

What you said merely inflates the value of stocks. It doesn't actually explain why things have gotten worse and you're making a weird separation between stock holders and savers, they are functionally equivalent.

We have cheap goods from China now, so what exactly is going wrong in your scenario? You didn't flesh that part out at all. If anything, you've decided to gloss over it, because housing is the primary issue.

As someone else has said: current account deficit is capital account surplus, meaning that the Chinese are flooding the US with money that could be used to build housing, but the Americans in their wisdom decided that that's a stupid idea and the money should go in the same quantity of housing and bid it up instead.

Unlike stocks people actually need housing to live in. It doesn't take much to explain how a rising cost of housing makes people feel squeezed, since it can literally lead to their eviction and homelessness.

Post reply on HN