rfrank

How do you justify that with

> unless every other nation stops doing this there is little value in being the only "clean" country (assuming somehow we stop)

If there is little value in being "clean", intelligence agencies have minimal to 0 oversight and accountability, and a non-trivial percentage of the population wants them to dominate geopolitics through any means necessary, how will we ever have an open/free society again?

> We used to believe that free and open societies would naturally prosper compared to authoritarian/totalitarian societies but what if that was all a lie?

Then give up your freedom and start advocating for monarchy in America.

So no, you can't.

Gringo

> ...but we are not talking about millions of refugees that change the social fabric altogether.

That is exactly what people are talking about. [1-5]

> Globalization has been going on for decades now and things do seem to have improved for many. Why now?

Things have improved for some, generally in different countries than the places where things have gotten much worse. See the decline of middle America. Add an elite class who's comfortable with and encourages income inequality [6], and you get lots of anger and backlash. Especially if you only call the people with complaints about globalization ignorant and racist for caring about their own self interest.

1. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445237/sweden-crime-ra...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grenade_attacks_in_Swe...

3. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2523332/migrants-sexually-assa...

4. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/eight-iraqi-migrants...

5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57Zk3TUNRBs

6. http://paulgraham.com/ineq.html

Influencer marketing is a thing, people do this on every major social network. I wouldn't be surprised if people do it here on hn too.

> But in either case the other two people are no worse off.

They both lost 50% of their customers, how will they pay their rent?

If this island were an apartment building, the owner could just keep his newfound production, evict the other two, and collect rent from new tenants who can afford it.

Rights are a ruse. The heart decides, and the head justifies. People use rights when it is convenient, and toss them aside when it contradicts their other beliefs.

Antifa is the yin to the alt-right's yang. Both are jokes.

That's certainly one way to interpret it. Not a very good one, but do you.

> The argument that America even has a singular culture to preserve is, I think, a false premise.

I think that is the actual false premise. Baseball, apple pie, and all that jazz. American folklore, Blues music, American cuisine, American politics and all its silly quirks. The idea of no American culture is laughable.

> When someone thinks you don't deserve to live because of the color of your skin, you're well within your right to defend yourself against that idea. You shouldn't have to wait until they're knocking down your door.

Replace color of your skin with political belief, and you've just made an argument for Trump supporters who live in places like Berkeley or San Jose to violently defend themselves from liberal rioting.

There's countries in the world that are completely unable to feed their people, provide any modicum of security, and where that's been the case for decades.

You are worried about problems in America?

Read the last sentence of the person I replied to's comment.

There's been over 1500 pedophilia and sex trafficking arrests since Trump took office. It may be less fake than you think.

Wow, that dramatic increase in frequency just magically happened huh?

Depends on who you ask.

https://imgur.com/a/MzDa4

> Now, you can argue that you won't go completely closed but I think you will lose out in proportion to how much you close things, specially if you do it to the point that other countries find themselves needing to retaliate with their own trade barriers and alternative trade treaties...

I agree with you the most here, and think it's true that unless a trade policy of that nature is implemented very carefully it could easily cause more harm than good. On the other hand, I think concerns about a complete walling off of collaboration/trade, or US manufacturers suddenly becoming unaware of international markets are overstated.

Manufacturers who have stayed alive already compete aggressively on price, which for them is more about materials management, relationships with suppliers (NXP, Samtec, Maxim, whoever), and process optimization. Component cost varies pretty dramatically by region, and how effectively a US based shop can navigate that is a big determining factor in how competitive they are with China/Mexico/etc.

From that perspective, most of the burden of something like a border adjustment tax is primarily on their customers, especially if they only do mid or low volume / high complexity runs (think medical/telecom/some consumer stuff). High volume / low complexity isn't something most US shops are geared for these days [1], so manufacturing will likely remain overseas and see a price increase in line with whatever policy change occurs. That probably won't hold true for high volume / high complexity (smartphones, etc) where cost of total assembly is higher. That seems to align with all the chatter about Foxconn, Samsung, Sharp, Toyota, etc. investing in US operations. [2][3]

The risks you mention are absolutely real, and my biggest hope at this stage is that any proposed changes are drafted and discussed openly, and given ample time for public review and comment.

1. http://www.assemblymag.com/articles/83764-managing-high-mix-...

2. https://www.macrumors.com/2017/02/08/sharp-lead-on-7-billion...

3. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/12/business/trump-asia-aliba...

Yes, I think trade barriers are both more feasible and preferable. I perceive automation as a constant, it's happening no matter what. Enforcing a border adjustment tax is easier than trying to remove every international tax loophole a la the double Irish. How is reshoring not trying to improve wealth and opportunity distribution, just with the benefactor being Americans and not the factory town in SEA or Central/South America? How does it not "have the potential to do better"? Someone keeping or re-gaining a job in their field is better. Those people contributing to their cities and towns in the form of taxes and other spending makes them better. I work in electronics manufacturing, and people are generally pretty excited about the potential changes.

That's not reality though. Their schools are failing, opiate addiction is rising, and opportunity is drying up. We are failing essentially all of those communities. Global corporations have no incentive to share the gains of their decisions with the communities they damage. Pressure to make them do so will likely just quicken the pace of automation, not suddenly make people care about the plight of the middle America. We can do both, but if the history of globalization is any indicator, we won't.

> Maybe I am lacking some context or some value system that the anti-globalist have and which might have its merits, and if so I would love to hear the argument, but to me the idea of "this person is more valuable or interesting to me because it was born my neighbor than anyone born a hundred miles away" seems to lack some ethical foundation.

Why? People care more about what happens around them. I care more about housing issues in the Bay Area than I do the same problem in New York. I care more about Oakland crime rates than Chicago crime rates. People care more about things that directly impact them and those close to them. If people see their hometowns and communities falling apart when the main industry moves overseas, and only receive second-order benefits like slightly reduced price of good a few years later, what incentive do they have to support globalism?

> The most terrifying part is that this can't simply be dismissed as a conspiracy theory, given the actions that have taken place so far.

Yes it can, and an awful lot of people are doing just that.

Hot take.

Welcome to HN, conservative opinions aren't terribly welcome.

The article comes off to me as though it assumes there was no inherent flaw in the message coming from the other side. That there weren't enough legitimate reasons to support Trump over Clinton in the election, and that Trump supporters all think the way they do because they were sold some great lie. Which I think is untrue, condescending, and a terrible starting position if the goal is to understand the opposition and try and change their minds.

> Find a wound common to many, someone to blame for it and a good story to tell. Mix it all together. Tell the wounded you know how they feel. That you found the bad guys. Label them: the minorities, the politicians, the businessmen. Cartoon them. As vermin, evil masterminds, flavourless hipsters, you name it. Then paint yourself as the saviour. Capture their imagination. Forget about policies and plans, just enrapture them with a good story. One that starts in anger and ends in vengeance. A vengeance they can participate in.

> In their mind it’s very simple: if you’re not among the victims, you’re among the culprits. In your case, you’re that modern bogeyman called the liberal urbanite hipster who thinks all cultures and religions are valid and equally worthy, who thinks of the working-class disparagingly. You are, in short, ‘a citizen of nowhere’ whose utopia is a massive, world-wide kumbaya with carrot chips, no church, and no soul either.

> Because, again, the problem is not the message but the messenger.

The article is horrible.

Violence is usually the outcome when political discussion breaks down. So if your belief that discussion with Trump supporters is impossible is true, it would seem like time to hop to it.

Then just skip to violence and stop wasting time? You can absolutely change closed minds, and I don't think most of those people's minds are as closed as you perceive them to be.

Not thinking of dialogue as 'culture jamming' would probably be a good start.

Criticize them all you want, but keep in mind your goal. Do you care about changing their minds, political/social polarization in the US, etc? If so, criticizing them would be a very stupid thing to do. Especially considering the GOP is the strongest its been from a local to national level since the 1920s.

Literally Hitler and literally fascism are both just bedwetting.