Hacker News Reader

> the Republicans moreso since apparently the nationalist faction of their coalition is larger than the labor faction of the Democrats' coalition.

Trump is grabbing votes from the labor faction more than any past Republican candidate -- his stance clearly taps into the American psyche, that American exceptionalism is real and that every American company should put American workers first. Jobs, jobs, jobs! is a great platform to run on.

Increasing net welfare of the planet by globalizing as fast as possible would undeniably end in failure as the resources would not at all be redistributed evenly, as can currently be seen as plain as day. Globalization is a threat to everybody as it increases instability across the board except for the very wealthy.

There is value in retreating to isolationism.

> Globalization is a threat to everybody as it increases instability across the board except for the very wealthy.

Globalization benefits the wealthy and global poor, the latter the most. The losers are the middle and working classes of developed countries.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/07/people-are-angry-abou... See Figure 4.

Why do we let this happen?

How is it the responsibility of the American people?

This is a prime example of a tragedy of commons -- we are depleting the resources of America at the expense of Americans. The return on investment just isn't there.

I'm not going to deny that lifting hundreds of millions of foreigners out of poverty is noble but why does the entirety of America's middle class have to be hollowed out? Those foreigners being lifted out of poverty aren't paying taxes to the US, they don't deserve the help they're getting, and the very wealthy aren't at all paying their fair share of taxes.

To say that wealth will simply be created by a burgeoning middle class through replicating the Chinese model is delusional, it implies wealth will simply trickle down and we all know how silly Reaganomics is. China achieved their current status by rabidly enforcing the consumption of Chinese products and services and now they are reaping the benefits, and we have to do the same thing.

China prevented their wealth from escaping through isolationist policies, it is clear that this model is the best way to secure our future. Simply lifting people out of poverty without enforcing domestic consumption is suicide by a thousand cuts.

> Why do we let this happen?

Because it is better in the long run.

> How is it the responsibility of the American people?

I can't answer that one for you, but I can answer for my own situation (NL): This country got rich over the backs of many people in other countries, if it wasn't for centuries of abuses, war, colonies, mass murder, slavery and exploitation we wouldn't be nearly as wealthy as we are today. This continued right up to 1975 with some nice examples of war crimes right up to and including modern times.

Compared to that wealth the little bit that we end up sharing with the rest of the world is an absolute pittance.

I'm sure imperialism helps a little --but it's uncertain how much. Sweden, is pretty rich, so is Equatorial Guinea, and Spain and Portugal are somewhat have-beens despite being the epitome of imperialism.

What matters more is good governance _at this time_. Singapore, Taiwan, Equatorial Guinea (despite the "dictator"[1]), Iceland, etc. Poorly governed places with huge natural resources reserves like Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico are doing relatively poorly despite their advantage and potential. They simply need better governance.

[1] Dictators can be economically beneficial (if they execute well) despite the repercussions to open government. Same for S Korea (up until the 90s)

You are essentially saying that children have to pay for the actions of their parents, or grand-parents, or simply ancestors. That is the reason there is a fundamental divide between individuals that believe along your lines, and individuals that think personal-responsibility, justice, reason and law are more important. For all of society's talk about "for our childrens' future", some are quite keen on punishing them in vague perpetuity for their parents' mistakes.

I look forward to the day when society is more enlightened than the current phase we are going through. Luckily, we won't hold the entire current-generation guilty, and their descendants guilty-by-proxy, for the things we are doing under some vague notion of "righting past wrongs", by punishing the innocent.

Could you be concrete? What specific American resources are being depleted? I know we recently became an oil exporting country. Would you be happy if we banned oil exports? Should we stop exporting corn and industrial machinery too?

China prevented their wealth from escaping through isolationist policies, it is clear that this model is the best way to secure our future. Simply lifting people out of poverty without enforcing domestic consumption...

China has the third lowest rate of domestic consumption (as a percentage of income) in the world. The only countries with a higher savings rate (and therefore a lower consumption rate) are Kuwait and Bermuda.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/25/china-savings-rate-versus-the...

Oops.

"American resources are being depleted?"

Water.

"Should we stop exporting corn..."

Mostly.

*"...and industrial machinery too?"

No.

> Globalization is a threat to everybody as it increases instability across the board except for the very wealthy.

Tell that to, oh, every ex-peasant Chinese urban worker ever. The problem with globalization right now is that workers in rich countries don't own shares in companies doing the outsourcing. Maybe that's what populists should focus on instead of preventing globalisation altogether.

I am fully aware that it has lifted literally hundreds of millions of the Chinese peasantry out of poverty but it is not the responsibility of the American people to achieve this.

I would wholeheartedly support this if and only if each and every Chinese citizen paid their fair share of taxes to the US, but obviously that will never happen.

The US is being hosed.

Then should have explicitly defined "everybody" as "everybody in the USA/developed countries".

The US as a whole isn't being hosed. The USA as a whole benefits from trade with China, but a significant subset of its population is getting hosed because of inequalities in ownership of companies that benefit from the trade. Now if we made sure that every American worker owned shares in those companies, everyone, including workers, would be better off than if there were no trade.

The US isn't being hosed, however some in the US are being hosed by globalization.

"rump is grabbing votes from the labor faction more than any past Republican candidate -- his stance clearly taps into the American psyche, that American exceptionalism is real and that every American company should put American workers first. Jobs, jobs, jobs! is a great platform to run on."

Foreigners seem to butcher this point with the American exceptionalism BS. There's a simpler and more honest explanation: Americans think American government policies should favor creating American jobs over foreign ones. We lost hundreds of thousands to millions... who knows what current count is... of jobs to outsourcing by greedy businesses. Buying power and stability keep going down which sends ripple effects throughout the economy.

The Trump supports likely want the job security more than the belief that their uniquely perfect or something. I want it to even though I'm a Trump opponent. Incentives for this country should reward people in this country rather than destroy their future.

Do also consider the side effect of outsourcing, cheaper products for Americans. If some jobs are not outsourced our products will cost 30%-70% more. There are other benefits too. If everyone who is complaining about outsourcing is willing to pay that much extra then sure, stop all outsourcing. If not, then acknowledge that outsourcing has it's benefits.

Even if outsourcing is banned, few jobs will return and most of them will go to educated robotics engineers, unless robots are also banned, at which point we might as well all pack up and move back to the caves.

That's fine with me. It worked in the past, too. Worst case is people buy less disposable stuff and aim for high ROI goods.

That is what I was getting at -- the American government should favor creating American jobs -- but I firmly believe the US is the greatest nation in the history of the world. Nobody else has achieved this level of scientific and technological advancement, not by a long shot, and I think it is a direct result of policies that hold America above all else.

The world may be ready for more supranational unions akin to the EU but it must occur under a framework where the consent of the governed is respected above all else, and I don't see that happening under a Clinton presidency and neither does Trump.

Part of it is long-term vs short-term thinking and planning. If you believe globalization will bring massive amounts of people out of poverty and into the market and that will result in more wealth bother overall and for Americans eventually, but at a cost of a reduced economic gain, or small economic regression, it may be a better strategy the focuses locally and has higher economic gain, but for a shorter period.

It's impossible to know for certain how each strategy would actually play out over time, since there are far to many variables, but those outcomes are how I see the different sides approaching it. Globalization isn't for the benefit of the poor of other countries, that's just a positive externality politicians talk up because it's an added incentive.

I agree the increasing anti-democratic policies of the liberal internationalists are very concerning. When this is coupled with contempt by elites for ordinary people it is a toxic environment that will breed extreme political reactions.

The democratic deficit springs more from impatience and haughtiness among government officials, than with an actual need to reduce democracy to achieve long-term good policies, I believe.

Mexico does not get richer when corporations move their operations there. How does anyone belief this codswallop?

Say I own a factory and it makes 100 million dollars gross per year and I have to pay my American workers 40 million dollars and the other running costs are 40 million. Now I've made 20 million in profit. Now I move operations to Mexico and I pay my cheaper workers 10 million dollars. Maybe I lower my product prices a little but I can still make it away with massively larger profits, which is why I moved operations there in the first place!

Where is the money going into Mexico in any of this? Sure, the government taxes you but odds are that tax is less than in the US, since you wouldn't otherwise set up there (take a look at Ireland for a good example of this). You probably did some greasing up of politicians to get a good deal and much of that tax money is not reaching the people of Mexico in the form of decent services, as is the case in most government expenditure (US military budget anyone?)

Now you say, well I'm hiring Mexican employees who are being paid and can now put that money back into the Mexican economy. This all sounds good in theory but you are paying them the bear minimum that you can (the whole reason you moved over there in the first place, remember) which ionly has to be marginally better, if at all, than the money they were making before you showed up.

It's been shown that NAFTA killed local industry in a lot of Mexico because American companies could sell their products more cheaply to the Mexican market, thereby killing the local competition. This forced people to abandon their businesses and work for American companies for pitiful wages.

Nothing about this neoliberal form of globalisation is helping to alleviate economic disparity in the world. We have seen inequality increase and real wages stagnate in the time since this whole project started.

> This all sounds good in theory but you are paying them the bear minimum that you can (the whole reason you moved over there in the first place, remember) which ionly has to be marginally better, if at all, than the money they were making before you showed up.

But haven't you increased the aggregate demand for labor in Mexico, since people who came to work in your factory are no longer doing other jobs? So either total employment could increase as other people start to do those jobs, or wages could rise more than marginally.

(If Google comes to town somewhere and hires away the whole IT department from a local hospital -- even for a 1% pay rise -- presumably the hospital will now be looking to hire some new IT staff.)

> The solution we've pursued thus far does indeed make Mexico richer, but it also makes parts of the US poorer.

Be very careful to note that generally, yes, there are some losers from trade, but that there are more winners: it's a positive sum game. At a theoretical level this means you could take something from the winners, redistribute it to the losers and still come out ahead compared to not having trade in the first place.

This is really well stated, completely agree.