|
Helsing posted:The "centre" isn't a coherent position, it's more of a rhetorical stance for defending the status quo, which is all but indefensible. The center is the idea that compromise is legitimate and/or that sometimes better results come from it. It used to manifest as, for example, candidates talking about how they can "work across the isle" which is a sentiment on the decline. Anyway, its funny you think that means less than the 'status quo' which, apparently, you and trump supporters think is incomprehensible to defend. But I tend to assume you like at least some aspects of existing democracy and government and so I'm saying I think it's worth reinforcing those things. Because, again, blanket opposition to the 'status quo' just got us Trump. The people benefiting from the status quo can't do those things because voters just elected....Trump quote:What the hell are you talking about? It would not be difficult to either import medical experts or even to subsidize medical tourism and fly people out to approved clinics in other countries where care is less expensive. A throw away line about how "healthcare is local" is not a substitute for making an actual argument. Yes it would be, at least compared to all the other things that we collectively call globalization.
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:It's like, where do you even start. I'd start here: quote:Source: 10 years of engineering experience
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
A tendency to systematize opens one up to being sucked into ideologies that are systematics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The center is the idea that compromise is legitimate and/or that sometimes better results come from it. It used to manifest as, for example, candidates talking about how they can "work across the isle" which is a sentiment on the decline. This is a rather hoary and cliched way of defining the "centre". What does it look like in practice for someone to adopt and defend this view, and are you seriously arguing (as seems to be your implication) that any defense of a government program or indeed democracy itself can only be channeled through "centrism"? The closest thing to a concrete example of how this would play out is implying in your last post that the left somehow bears some responsibility for Trump because they tend to share his sentiment that "the system is rigged". So your suggesting the left just drop that critique so it can make mealy mouthed civics 101 homilies to the importance of compromise? quote:Yes it would be, at least compared to all the other things that we collectively call globalization. Why? Given the vast sums of political capital that were expended to clear the way for major trade deals why do you think it's somehow prohibitive for the government to bring in foreign trained doctors or to subsidize medical tourism for patients? You're not even making an argument here you're just stubbornly repeating "it just is!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Why does globalization/free trade seem to be viewed as inevitably as climate change or the sun rising in the east, in some circles? Certainly there's a lot of momentum behind it, but it doesn't seem like a force of nature to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Globalization is largely responsible for the modern, western way of life being possible. "Inevitable" isn't really the right word since we could definitely stop or reverse it if the political will existed to do so, but the result of doing so probably wouldn't make anyone happy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Globalization is largely responsible for the modern, western way of life being possible. "Inevitable" isn't really the right word since we could definitely stop or reverse it if the political will existed to do so, but the result of doing so probably wouldn't make anyone happy. Well, it certainly didn't create it, as the US middle class was founded on European bones post-WWII. Is the theory that globalization was the only way to sustain that lifestyle after Europe recovered? And why would a somewhat more protectionist trade stance automatically torpedo modern living? Are we talking giving up iPhones for a living wage, or something else?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
call to action posted:Well, it certainly didn't create it, as the US middle class was founded on European bones post-WWII. Is the theory that globalization was the only way to sustain that lifestyle after Europe recovered? I'm talking about the modern consumer driven economy that exists in the US, not the middle class. Anything that threatens consumer spending in any way has the potential to be absolutely disastrous for the economy as a whole, in part because huge numbers of people are employed somewhere along the chain that gets things from factories and into consumer hands. It's the same reason people are so terrified of the economic effects of repealing or gutting the ACA. Not to mention that it's disingenuous to pretend that we can literally trade better wages for more expensive goods, because the cost of goods is a factor in real wages. So, yes, we can become more protectionist, but that's like saying that we could technically become a socialist state if we wanted to. Doing anything that interrupts the cheap flow of goods into consumer hands is akin to completely retooling the US economy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Helsing posted:This is a rather hoary and cliched way of defining the "centre". What does it look like in practice for someone to adopt and defend this view, and are you seriously arguing (as seems to be your implication) that any defense of a government program or indeed democracy itself can only be channeled through "centrism"? Yes partly because it was poorly written but partly because that's the reality. And the important thing I left out is that the legitimacy of a 'center' is fundamental to a functioning democracy. And it takes a culture among the representatives and support from their voters to allow that to happen. Both things which are currently breaking down. quote:The closest thing to a concrete example of how this would play out is implying in your last post that the left somehow bears some responsibility for Trump because they tend to share his sentiment that "the system is rigged". So your suggesting the left just drop that critique so it can make mealy mouthed civics 101 homilies to the importance of compromise? The left needs to support the things that the left needs to support and that includes many aspects of what fall under the 'status quo'. That's simply true but also when faith in everything falls apart I think the left loses to the right and I think that's what's parly on display across the US and Europe now. Again trump is a perfect example. Supporting the anti-status quo candidate in this case didn't just bring us aggressive policy reform but instead gave us someone who lacks respect for basic critical aspects of high office and traits to succeed at it. That's the collateral damage that I think is somewhat inevitable from overly broad or cynical criticism. quote:Why? Given the vast sums of political capital that were expended to clear the way for major trade deals why do you think it's somehow prohibitive for the government to bring in foreign trained doctors or to subsidize medical tourism for patients? You're not even making an argument here you're just stubbornly repeating "it just is!" Globalization means importing iPhones from China not importing chinese people to make phones. Pretending those are basically the same things is a weird mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
call to action posted:Why does globalization/free trade seem to be viewed as inevitably as climate change or the sun rising in the east, in some circles? Certainly there's a lot of momentum behind it, but it doesn't seem like a force of nature to me. Political will can theoretically stop anything so what do you consider inevitable? Technological advancement seems rather inevitable to me and it's not a leap to expect that to get applied to age old trade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
call to action posted:Why does globalization/free trade seem to be viewed as inevitably as climate change or the sun rising in the east, in some circles? Certainly there's a lot of momentum behind it, but it doesn't seem like a force of nature to me. It is not anymore, longer more complicated supply chains and ever increasing trade and interconnectedness are definately no longer sure things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
I feel like globalization is being used as a catch all for the modern era consumer economy. When people talk about globalization loving everything up, I think they mean that everything was going better 1940-1985, then from the late 80's onward we hosed up somehow. Everyone seems to take an all or nothing approach, as if you either support globalization or you want to dismantle the consumer economy. Obviously the world was connected an goods flowed between countries before the 80's and 90's. The changes that were made were done on purpose to allow multinationals to get around the pesky labor and environmental laws of 1st world countries by moving production offshore. If China protected its environment and treated its workers like human beings the way Europe and to a lesser extent the US do, their would be no advantage to manufacturing US or European goods in China. Presumably Mexico and China for example will eventually have a standard of living and pay comparable to the US and Europe. After that we can exploit cheap labor in India, Vietnam, ect ect, until they are raised up. Where does it end? What is capitalisms plan when there are no more hell holes that will allow their environment and people to be exploited?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 07:21
|
|
|
Bishounen Bonanza posted:What is capitalisms plan when there are no more hell holes that will allow their environment and people to be exploited? Make more of them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
Bishounen Bonanza posted:What is capitalisms plan when there are no more hell holes that will allow their environment and people to be exploited? Clusters of specialization to drive relative advantage and more automation. You have that happening within countries already, if you would look at trade between regions of say, the US. Lower absolute input costs are just a windfall that is easy to capture. If you don't have that, it's all about relative input costs and productivity improvements through better know-how and technological progress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 08:20
|
|
|
call to action posted:Well, it certainly didn't create it, as the US middle class was founded on European bones post-WWII. Is the theory that globalization was the only way to sustain that lifestyle after Europe recovered? Please be aware that there was a globalized world before and between the world wars, which pretty much lead to similar effects in many countries as today. since you asked Is international free trade good? International trade allows, in theory, to exploit different factor endowments (including resources) and technological skills of countries by playing to relative advantages. This, not only in theory, allows the world to produce everything more efficiently (same principle as division of labor). If you think about it a little bit, this is so generally true that we basically only need to argue about how big this improvement is, not if it exists. And: if it is perhaps outweighted by something else... It is not really controversial that the amount and range of products available today can be attributed mostly to, next to new technologies, globalized trade. Both factors here are necessary. In practice companies, for example, use economies of scale and scope to make products available which would otherwise not be profitable to produce. This is especially true for parts of the value chain that the end-consumer never comes in contact with. There are endless arguments, from economies, resources/factors, to competition and politics why a lot of trade basically leads to more consumable stuff produced on the planet earth (I will return later to the question if everyone actually profits from this). So yes, end of trade would mean that most products we enjoy today would disappear, even in the long run, as resources and investments have to be shifted towards products which are inefficient to produce in the country. There are some nice examples to how things look when the range of products decreases. You might feel that it is not necessary to have so many products of the same type. And to a degree, markets tend to produce too many varietes. But variety is still good and the other extreme really hurts your quality of life. Prime examples are really countries which do not trade internationally. Basically, nothing you buy really fits you and most things are not very good. Nevertheless the theory is also clear on the following: A big country like the United States CAN profitably implement protectionist measures. Even measures which would not be profitable will first and foremost hurt the smaller countries (in economic terms). As funny as this sounds, compared to US, the classic "smaller" country today is China. There are numerous things countries can try to do to profit more from trade and a lot of papers have been written of this. But intuitively, a powerful country can do almost everything it wants. That's why the WTO exists and that's why everyone gets so drat nervous about Trump. So when is free trade not good then? There is a range of protectionist measures that make sense overall. Certain industries and certain times in a country require these things and the WTO generally allows this. Let's talk however about more systemic problems. First, not everyone profits from trade. Wages, for example, will not rise in every sector if labor is immobile (this is why the EU also includes free movement). Statically and overall, all countries will profit in an absolute sense. But in reality it does matter where you work and labor is not just labor. As such, trade can lead to structural problems in countries, even in Western countries. Second, increased trade obviously leads to more production which leads to environmental issues. Overall, it will be hard to make a case that trade is bad for Western countries. Trump is not really targeting trade. He is trying to profit from it more because he realizes he leads the only country in the world which can dictate terms to every other country. For other countries results differ, but it is virtually impossible to overestimate the real positive impact trade has on our consumerist lifestyles. It has been a long time since Western countries didn't really trade, but everytime this did happen it lead (or would have lead) to deep crises over a span of five to ten years. The trick is now the realize these are not temporary crisis, those were adjustments to a state where things simply sucked more. Let's go to non-Western countries. Again, overall, trade has had many positive effects. Poverty, infant death, illiteracy etc. have decreased almost exponentially parallel to international trade (there are of course real analyses of this) in the last fifty years. It's clear that even if you want to attribute all this to technology (which you should not), then trade was still the cataclyst for diffusion. A good case can be made that the ONLY efficient development aid we have actually come up with was international trade and investments. Especially in countries in which exploitative institutions (Acemoglu/Robinson argument) makes every other form of development aid that is not motived by personal profit pretty much useless. Arguing that non-developed countries are worse off is usually done by people who idealize agricultural and tribal lifestyle. One can argue about this. The reality of such life, however, has been really lovely. Famine, child death, exploitation and lack of culture are mere symptoms of these economic hardships. So the question is not if international trade has helped people. The question is of course always if we can do better. And here I find it helpful to look at the semi-developed countries such as for example Turkey (because I know Turkey). Turkey is not a rich country nor has it been for a while. A good way to see what this looks like are the rural parts of Turkey, where things are not really developed. However, Turkey has on the surface profited greatly from international trade, because it allowed instant access to almost all Western consumption goods. Even Westerners can live comfortably in Istanbul. If you have money, you can get almost everything you can also buy elsewhere. Supermarkets stock consumer items from all-over the world. And while the range is still smaller than in Western countries, this kind of stuff has an immeasurable impact on real people's lives. Think just of medicine! I mean poo poo, a village doctor in East-Anatolia without any trade can pretty much not help you at all. This is true for almost every semi-developed country in the world. There is a negative here, however. Everything you import, efficient as it may be to do so, needs to be payed (in the end) by inland production. Inland production in Turkey, however, is not very high. Turkey therefore can chose to take on debt as an economy, or it can try to produce where it is competitive. And here comes the problem for non-Western countries. They are only competitive (or have a relative advantage) in sectors which are not long-run desirable, ie, low-grade industry, textiles, agriculture and such. Profits from these ventures quickly find their way to the West. These industries do not further the development of the countries much (compare impact of tech industry to textile industry on a community, for example). They lock in people to the choice to either take a low-education job or work abroad, leading to brain drain. They are also easy to shift, making the countries economic power volatile and dependent even more on Western countries. It is NOT obvious that semi-developed countries can overcome these issues to close the gap. In fact there are strong structural reasons why Western countries will keep their advantage in exactly the sectors which we can call long-run desirable. So while trade helps the actual life of people right now a ton and has done so inverse-proportional to how advanced the country was before trade, it also leads to structural issues that are not easy to overcome. And I actually do not know a single country which has. Estonia has tried, I guess. My verdict is this. Without trade, lives of most people on the planet would immeasurably suck more. But free trade may not lead to an equitable world in the long run, and it is not clear this was ever the intent of Western countries.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 09:52
|
|
|
Yeah but, like most humans on earth, I don't really care about how trade has lifted the world up. I care about my family's prosperity, which trade has diminished the prospects of. Notice how your analysis focuses almost entirely on "countries", as if the wealth distribution in most countries isn't incredibly imbalanced. And long term, trade won't lift everyone up because, as soon as the Chinese are feeling their oats enough to request better health, safety, and environmental standards, companies will just move to the next hellhole. The marginal lift that trade provides to workers' lives is undone by the instability of structuring our society around industry's needs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
Bishounen Bonanza posted:What is capitalisms plan when there are no more hell holes that will allow their environment and people to be exploited? Robots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
call to action posted:Yeah but, like most humans on earth, I don't really care about how trade has lifted the world up. I care about my family's prosperity, which trade has diminished the prospects of. Notice how your analysis focuses almost entirely on "countries", as if the wealth distribution in most countries isn't incredibly imbalanced.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Bishounen Bonanza posted:I feel like globalization is being used as a catch all for the modern era consumer economy. When people talk about globalization loving everything up, I think they mean that everything was going better 1940-1985, then from the late 80's onward we hosed up somehow. Everyone seems to take an all or nothing approach, as if you either support globalization or you want to dismantle the consumer economy. Obviously the world was connected an goods flowed between countries before the 80's and 90's. The changes that were made were done on purpose to allow multinationals to get around the pesky labor and environmental laws of 1st world countries by moving production offshore. If China protected its environment and treated its workers like human beings the way Europe and to a lesser extent the US do, their would be no advantage to manufacturing US or European goods in China.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Companies moving operations out of China into the poorer Southeast Asian countries to save money has been going on for years now Yeh. If anything we're on stage 4 or 5 of that process, with burgeoning middle classes in Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, and China. Manufacturing is moving in multiple directions now, pouring into low-cost countries all around the globe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Companies moving operations out of China into the poorer Southeast Asian countries to save money has been going on for years now Some of the companies are planning on jumping right to automation instead of seeking cheaper labor. Foxconn, of iPhone game, plan on replacing something like 100,000 workers in China with robots. We're at the point where near slave labor is still more expensive than robots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
That's an interesting thought - while it used to work where manufacturing moved to where wages were lowest, thus boosting the lower/middle class in a succession of countries, once these basic tasks can be automated or the cost of robots is cheap enough, that will break the whole cycle. Countries will be able to industrialize without creating jobs or boosting wages, which was kind of an important point. vvv Who was that a response to? Mozi fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Jan 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
If a place can replace 50% of the labor required with automated labor, they won't just have their workers work half as hard This is no good E: I misread your post at first cause I thought you said it was important for people to be able to industrialize without paying people more. Important as in good. SSJ_naruto_2003 fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Jan 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Companies moving operations out of China into the poorer Southeast Asian countries to save money has been going on for years now Yes, I know this. And as those countries become the new "China" for lack of a better way to put it, the companies will move again, until there is nowhere with slave labor to move to. Please read peoples posts fully before mashing your face into your keyboard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
Bishounen Bonanza posted:Yes, I know this. And as those countries become the new "China" for lack of a better way to put it, the companies will move again, until there is nowhere with slave labor to move to. Please read peoples posts fully before mashing your face into your keyboard. And what people are saying is that there's no way we ever reach that point, at least for manufacturing. There's already a floor for most "unskilled" labor that can be outsourced where it's cheaper to just say "gently caress third world labor" and run an automated facility that can operate with a relatively small number of skilled workers instead. We aren't in danger of running out of places to exploit just yet, so it seems pretty unlikely to me that we'll hit peak exploitation before automation makes the issue moot anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
Bishounen Bonanza posted:Yes, I know this. And as those countries become the new "China" for lack of a better way to put it, the companies will move again, until there is nowhere with slave labor to move to. Please read peoples posts fully before mashing your face into your keyboard. quote:The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented. I find it vaguely unsettling just how much of Marx's writings actually seem more accurate now than ever before; like a Doomsday prophet we've tut-tuted when times were good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
call to action posted:
Man you could have at least read the post tho rude Paradoxish posted:And what people are saying is that there's no way we ever reach that point, at least for manufacturing. There's already a floor for most "unskilled" labor that can be outsourced where it's cheaper to just say "gently caress third world labor" and run an automated facility that can operate with a relatively small number of skilled workers instead. We aren't in danger of running out of places to exploit just yet, so it seems pretty unlikely to me that we'll hit peak exploitation before automation makes the issue moot anyway. In my opinion the "exploitation" is yet to happen. Don't get me wrong. The current state of outsourced manufacturing sucks for the people involved. But it sucks less than before for the large majority of actual people in those countries. Because while we can talk about what should be different to reduce poverty, increase literacy and abolish slave labor, the facts are that international industrialization is the ONLY working and long term plan that did improve on these things in reality. And in every country it did so exponentially. Every country where fifty years ago large parts of the population where in danger of starvation or death by illness each year, and where now manufacturing moves out of because "people simple aren't poor enough anymore to exploit", it a HUGE achievement. Each case dwarfs monumentally the impact, both theoretical and factual, of any other development aid or government attempt. For me, it shows that any workable political, developmental and economic system needs to be based on the assumption of human self-interest, because in the end this is the catalyst of any change. Short of human nature making a U-turn and countries declaring that "we are one" and "everything will be shared" in unision, THIS is the only measure we ever had to improve peoples lives over the world. I keep making this point because international trade is, was and will be opposed by people who simply do NOT have a real politically viable alternative. THAT BEING SAID, I think it is far easier to lift people out of total poverty than it is to make a just-industrialized country work in light of Western economic power. I made the point above without automation, but automation makes it even more true. The canon that development will lead to convergence is simply misleading. It is much more likely that the individual desire for quality of life will lead to a rational, yet destructive build up of implicit or explicit debt of non-Western countries, both in terms of trade balance and in terms of ownership of capital within the country. This enables a macroeconomic exploitation in the long term. This is important in my opinion because it is compatible with the incentives of all decision makers involved, including the people. Macroeconomic debt always hits the next generation more than me, for example. So in my opinion the issue is not that on a long term basis everyone is now less poor, the issue is that we tell people that even without political change they will "one day" achieve Western lifestyle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 09:30
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:But it sucks less than before for the large majority of actual people in those countries. This argument is literally just as applicable to Stalinist USSR, just so you know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 12:09
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:This argument is literally just as applicable to Stalinist USSR, just so you know. You can argue whether it was the best way or not to industrialize the FSU, but the results particularly the change in adult literacy between 1920 and 1936 speaks for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:You can argue whether it was the best way or not to industrialize the FSU, but the results particularly the change in adult literacy between 1920 and 1936 speaks for themselves. Wasn't a great deal of that change happening because millions of people were dying in Stalin's purges?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
axeil posted:Wasn't a great deal of that change happening because millions of people were dying in Stalin's purges? If you can provide a causal link between people being shot and rising literacy rates I'd like to see it, because as it stands now your statement is completely absurd.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:If you can provide a causal link between people being shot and rising literacy rates I'd like to see it, because as it stands now your statement is completely absurd. Mostly shooting the illiterate?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
Trump's supporters don't get to bitch about global free trade because they consecutively voted in the last 4-5 pro-NAFTA presidents and all the necessary congressmen/senators who legislated it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
If anything I would say both systems were ultimately unsustainable even though they did led to increases in standards of living for their two systems. As far as at least the purges went, the literate were more likely to be purged while peasants were most likely to die during collectivization. Ultimately, the increase in literacy was absolutely due to an improvement in schooling from the near lack of public education in the Russian Empire. At this point, it looks like we are entering the "hangover" from globalization, comparable to the Brezhnev/Gorbachev period. Most major middle income (Russia, Brazil, Turkey, Egypt, Mexico etc) countries seem to be struggling in some serious capacity while the first world seems to be heading towards authoritarian populism. Significant growth in still happening in parts of the developing world but it is nowhere near the high flying days of the 2000s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
You can just call it a crisis of capitalism and be done with it. Most people here are at least passingly familiar with Marx's works.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yes partly because it was poorly written but partly because that's the reality. And the important thing I left out is that the legitimacy of a 'center' is fundamental to a functioning democracy. And it takes a culture among the representatives and support from their voters to allow that to happen. Both things which are currently breaking down. Centrism didn't lose legitimacy because people said nasty things about it. It lost legitimacy because it was the expression of a corrupt and sclerotic system that was incapable of reforming itself even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it was failing. This seems to be completely absent from your analysis. quote:The left needs to support the things that the left needs to support and that includes many aspects of what fall under the 'status quo'. That's simply true but also when faith in everything falls apart I think the left loses to the right and I think that's what's parly on display across the US and Europe now. This is all so reductive and simplistic that I don't even know where to begin formulating a response. Has it occured to you that supposedly centre-left politicians supporting financial deregulation, and then responding to a massive finanical crisis by imposing government austerity measures, probably played a much larger role in the rise of political extremist groups? Your entire post is written as though objective reality doesn't exist and the only thing that influences political trends is what people say rather than what they do. Left-wingers correctly criticizing the massive failures of the status quo is not what lead to Donald Trump or the rise of right-wing extremists in Europe. quote:Globalization means importing iPhones from China not importing chinese people to make phones. Pretending those are basically the same things is a weird mistake. Give me a loving break. How can you make such sloppy arguments in good conscience? You're not in any way responding to the substance of what I said, you're trying to redefine a word so you can win the argument on the narrowest possible grounds. I've pointed out that, if the political will existed, the US could realize billions of dollars of savings by either sending people abroad for treatment or bringing in more foreign doctors. The truth or falsity of that statement in no way hinges on how you define the term "globalization". This is such a slimy attempt at a response that word's almost fail me. You haven't in any way challenged the substance of my claim you've tried to define it out of existence. It's even more egregious because you're using a definition of globalization that you seem to have invented just to win this argument. Here's a summary from an IMF document that I found with about two seconds of googling. It's very much a pro-globalization document so I can't imagine you'll object to its ideological tilt: quote:II. What is Globalization? The reason that trade in medical care isn't globalized but manufacturing is has more to do with politics than logistics. If the stated reasons for reducing trade and investment barriers in manufacturing were followed to their logical conclusion then our policy makers would be dedicating time and effort to reducing doctors salaries through foreign competition. The logistical hurdles are nowhere near great enough to explain why this hasn't happened. The clear explanation -- as illustrated by that story I posted up thread -- is political, not technocratic. Because, as uncomfortable as it might make you to acknowledge this, political power and conflicts between domestic interest groups (such as capital vs. organizd labour) are a fundamental part of the calculus surrounding which industries have been most exposed to international competition. No, they are not the only factor, and yes logistics (such as the rise of containerization) play a role here, but you consistently try to write as though domestic political struggles between special interests isn't absolutely crucial for understanding how globalization plays out in practice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Centrism didn't lose legitimacy because people said nasty things about it. It lost legitimacy because it was the expression of a corrupt and sclerotic system that was incapable of reforming itself even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it was failing. This seems to be completely absent from your analysis. So where exactly do you factor voters into your equation. Some center left politicians supported deregulation and all republicans basically support it and voters keep sending republicans into office in big numbers. Can I say Trump again? Why does it seem like you compare the system to your personal ideas of success and keep score based on that? If voters don't want single payer healthcare and the system doesn't deliver it that should be scored as a democratic success, not a systemic failure. It's correct that the material conditions of, say, rust belt voters weren't well addressed by the 'status quo' but those voters weren't exactly asking for a socialist revolution and played a major part in voting in the people that didn't address their problems for decades. quote:Give me a loving break. How can you make such sloppy arguments in good conscience? You're not in any way responding to the substance of what I said, you're trying to redefine a word so you can win the argument on the narrowest possible grounds. I've pointed out that, if the political will existed, the US could realize billions of dollars of savings by either sending people abroad for treatment or bringing in more foreign doctors. The truth or falsity of that statement in no way hinges on how you define the term "globalization". This is such a slimy attempt at a response that word's almost fail me. You haven't in any way challenged the substance of my claim you've tried to define it out of existence. And that source goes on to describe how the term was invented in the 70's to describe how technology allowed increased trade and capital flows. U.S. immigration by percentage peaked around the 20's. Flows of humans have been larger in the past and the fact is that immigration hasn't been a dominant factor compared to trade in recent economic trends. And I think you have a tendency to downplay obvious structural issues. The argument I'm making about 'doctors being local' applies equally to other hands-on trades like plumbers which likewise haven't directly suffered foreign competition (wages generally keeping up with inflation though probably suffering a little from labor displacements in similar industries that are open to competition). But again, the very high level of training and certification requirements make doctors particularly special which is another reason I think they're a really poor example to try and extrapolate from.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
The reason trade in medical care is not globalized is literally logistics tho In Europe, for example, it's quite normal to fly to a cheaper country to have expensive medical care. The reason it's not overwhelming is because there is a huge uncertainty about quality in those countries. Arabs, on the other hand, have all their medical procedures done in UK or Germany. Far less of this can be seen in the US. Because the US is logistically more isolated. If you run this in one of the most robust and simplest model classes, you consistently identify distance as a or the major determinant of trade streams for a large group of goods and almost all services.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:If you run this in one of the most robust and simplest model classes, you consistently identify distance as a or the major determinant of trade streams for a large group of goods and almost all services. They just straight up tell one this in logistics in the supply chain. It's also obvious if one has ever been involved in international logistics. But it's more complicated than just distance. The different modes of transport across the distance affect it too, in significant ways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
I know some fringe-y Americans who get a lot of medical and especially dental procedures done in Mexico. I wonder what factors might increase or decrease their numbers in the coming decade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 06:14
|
|
