Hacker News Reader

Not the person you responded to originally. When you bring up Trump and Biden and globalization I see a pretty big difference. On one hand Trump basically never stopped running his mouth about it. He would take action then tell everyone he is taking action to bring x jobs back home. Meanwhile Biden does not do that. To me it seems if you are supported by the right, beating the "end globalization" drum is beneficial. Yet if you are supported by the left, I do not see the same benefit. In fact I would argue the left as a whole supports globalization so it may actually hurt Biden to talk about steps he is taking to end it.

Also you are saying its proven it is not politically correct because its talked about and Biden has taken action for onshore more industries yet that does not even jive with the definition of politically incorrect. I think you are just responded to the original poster saying its not being discussed because its politically incorrect but that statement in itself does not make sense either. Something is politically incorrect when someone does not avoid language or actions that may offend another group. Something can be politically incorrect and still be discussed to death.

Where I got the definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically%20inc...

As for the last part about the anti-globalization crowd has yet to make a case convincingly, the same can be said on the flip said. For example the pro globalization crowd has not made a convincingly case for why we need to use slave/child labor overseas to make Nikes and electronics. If we produced these in the US, slave/child labor is generally illegal and this would not be a problem. Another example would be the fact the pro globalization crowd has not shown a convincing case for why would should be supporting other countries that commit massive humans rights abuses. Why should we send money overseas to a country that has reeducation camps they force citizens into?

>In fact I would argue the left as a whole supports globalization so it may actually hurt Biden to talk about steps he is taking to end it.

Ok, but he is in fact taking those steps, and going beyond what Trump did in the process.

I don't think both parties are the same, but I do think both parties are having public, ongoing debates about globalization. Their answers vary over time and candidate. It's not being controlled by shadowy elites, nor is it being shamed as "politically incorrect" speech. Using your definition -- no one thinks this discussion is "offensive."

It's hard to see the major legislation being passed or presidential campaigns being run and say otherwise -- I think the onus is on you or the OP to submit evidence wherein the elites or whatever shut down the conversation or react with indignation. I've provided my evidence in this thread already.

As for globalization versus not. Again, what is the alternative? Be concrete. To me, globalization is capitalism or free marketism. Put another way, it's a market based economy.

Once upon a time, people believed that planned economies were an alternative to globalism, but I'd say the jury is in and no one really believes that anymore. So, seriously, what is the alternative?

I imagine most people agree that child / slave labor are abhorrent and that we should add safety rails to globalization to address those issues. But that's still globalization.

It is not my definition. It is the definition according to webster. You and OP are using the term incorrectly and I pointed that out. You and OP can make up your own definition of it, but unless one of you tells us what definition you are working off, the rest of us just are left guessing.

I never once said the elites shut down discussion yet you ask me to provide evidence for a point I never made? Its pretty hard to have a real discussion when one person decides to make stuff up out of thin air. If you read my last commit I even mention the OPs claim of no discussion because its politically incorrect does not make sense with the linked definition. Would this not be me providing evidence against the point you are asking me to prove? It seems like we both agree the OPs statement is incorrect so why are you trying to force me onto the other side of the argument?

As for the solution, I do not know a good solution. I use to think globalization was the answer but not anymore. That is why I asked you to explain why you are okay with globalization causing these serious issues. Based on your last sentence it seems like you agree these are bad and we should do something about them. Yet you don't mention the fact we have had a WTO for almost 2 decades that could address them and not one single country has tried too. For example WTO on child labor: https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min99_e/englis...

In my eyes when decades have passed, its a pretty clear sign the safety rails are not wanted or going to be added by those that have the power to add them.

Setting aside semantic debates, I agree that progress is slow. In my opinion progress like this is always extremely slow and hard fought. People rarely give up power or resources out of the goodness of their hearts.

For example, on these pages I see plenty of debate about whether we should expand healthcare, tax the wealthy, enforce stricter environmental laws, and so forth. If the netizens of Slacker News can't reach consensus how can we expect the wide world to come together?

Personally, I try not to get swept up in all these currents. I'm just another worker ant in the colony. So I try to focus on what I can do myself and around me.

I mean the question we are both trying to address "what alternative to globalization is there that doesn't have x and y issues but still keeps the world running" is really trillion dollar question at this point. If one of us had the answer I would hope we would out trying to implement it and not on HN.

I would argue that the slow progress on human rights/labor issues coupled with the failure of globalized supply chains during covid really point towards us needing to rethink our current system. Maybe modifying the current system will be enough, I do not know. However in my eyes our current form of globalization is problematic and that needs to be addressed.

> As president, Trump took steps against globalization. A far cry from "politically incorrect"

This reads like you've forgotten how Trump was portrayed in the mainstream.

You seem to have missed or misunderstood the term trial balloon. Not everything you read that is presented as a serious article is actually a serious article.

edit: Apparently I should either stop trying to make points in the nuance or stop suggesting that news articles are managed because people think agreeing requires a tinfoil hat.

Hard to call the CHIPS[1] act a trial ballon if I'm being honest. Or for that matter Trump's tariffs[2]. Again, the position upthread is wrong.

[1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_tariffs

I mean I think you’re both right in ways, but you seem to be equating “elites testing talking about it publicly” with “elites privately lobbying for funding that fixes it” which are not at all the same thing, and the difference is part of the point GP was trying to make.

Your references are also anachronistic to the narrative you’re constructing.