Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Globalization unlocks the potential of top 5% types stuck in underdeveloped countries. At the same time, it often undermines the prosperity of bottom 2/3 types born in wealthy countries. As a matter of democratic theory, however, the political establishment's duty is to the majority of the populace in their own country, not to untapped potential in other countries.

View on HN

Given the massive increases in living standards in Asia we have seen in the last 20-30 years I think that globalization has unlocked the potential of far more than 5% of the population of underdeveloped countries.

What is that really compared to? More people have cars and couches? More concrete and trash men cleaning up the streets Were the past lives of people so destitute that we needed to deliver an economic and social epiphany?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

That's certainly true. I was thinking more in terms of globalization/immigration (in light of OP's anecdote).

Ethically and pragmatically, that is a fantastic idea. Maybe countries should all be walled up. Google should work only in the US and there should not be any exports or imports.

Of course, colonialism did not bring any advantages to the West or cause bad things in Asia or Africa.

It's not a matter of having more or less foreign intercourse. It's what is the guiding policy behind those policy decisions? In a democracy, the guiding policy typically should be "this policy will make the majority of Americans better off," not "this policy is dictated by economic theory," or "this policy is the right/compassionate thing to do."

The thing is if what is good for people in the short term is not what is good for people in the long term, politicians will do the former.

In a democracy, the guiding policy should be "this policy will make the majority of Americans better off in the long term"

You're both right. Long-term benefit certainly should be the guiding policy, but as Keynes observed 'in the long run we are all dead.' Because many people are selfish and because political systems are relatively easy to game, short-term self-serving strategies often prevail.

It's the same thing in dictatorships. Many dictators could use their highly concentrated authority to undertake large projects that would benefit their population significantly and leave a great legacy. But most of them don't because it's easier and more predictable to just maintain an iron grip on power and enjoy a life of luxury while suppressing any opposition.

Strategically, many people prefer to be a big fish in a small pond than the reverse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com