I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Same criticism I hear from Trump voters. Hillary's a globalist. Jobs will disappear!

They're right too! Neither candidate is going to reverse globalization, and it's really up to Congress to find a way to soften the blows for everyone.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Im not sure you understand that every response you've received today translates to: Sebby, you're full of shit.

And I've spilled much less ink pointing out your bullshit than you've spent telling everyone how little you care.

TM

Here's the real deal, Sebby: Trump is not a normal blowhard. He has no impulse control and if he wins, there will no one with the power to say no to any of the many bad things he can do as president. Haig and Kissinger had managed to set it up with the Joint Chiefs so that they could circumvent any decision by Nixon to start a war in 1973-74, but that won't happen again. And Manafort's "mechanical trouble with the plane" strategy won't work, either.

Yes, I know I am almost certainly wasting my time, but this is a big enough deal that I will say it anyway: dude, don't be a fucking moron.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Here's the real deal, Sebby: Trump is not a normal blowhard. He has no impulse control and if he wins, there will no one with the power to say no to any of the many bad things he can do as president.

The good news is that he doesn't have any attention span, either, and wants to be President more than he wants to do anything in particular as President. What his administration would do would depend a great deal on who gets which jobs, which is really anyone's guess, who controls access to Trump, and how different people maneuver to get his ear and push his buttons.

But a GOP Congress would not wait for Trump to tell them what to do, and it's hard to imagine that he would care enough to veto what they'd produce.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

They're right too! Neither candidate is going to reverse globalization, and it's really up to Congress to find a way to soften the blows for everyone.

I'm concerned with the opposite. The market may be reversing globalization and that may be a very bad thing.

I think that, unfortunately, globalization is slowing down as some of the largest foreign markets mature. We seen a real decline in export/import measures the last couple of years. On the one hand, rising wages in developing markets mean there are less export-oriented jobs there, making stuff to sell into the US, and, on the other hand, those markets are becoming more self-sufficient as they develop, so they need to import less stuff from us. So we seem to have a "localization" trend to counter the "globalization".

People may be more mobile, too, and in the service sector some people may be moving where their services are needed rather than trying to sell them from where they are. And that's a different kind of globalization.

But in a world where we have all that localization reversing the globalization metric, countries may become less inter-dependent, need each other less, and so more bellicose. You're less likely to start a war with your major trading partner.

Trump, of course, is still fighting the last battle rather than thinking about the next one.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I'm concerned with the opposite. The market may be reversing globalization and that may be a very bad thing.

I think that, unfortunately, globalization is slowing down as some of the largest foreign markets mature. We seen a real decline in export/import measures the last couple of years. On the one hand, rising wages in developing markets mean there are less export-oriented jobs there, making stuff to sell into the US, and, on the other hand, those markets are becoming more self-sufficient as they develop, so they need to import less stuff from us. So we seem to have a "localization" trend to counter the "globalization".

People may be more mobile, too, and in the service sector some people may be moving where their services are needed rather than trying to sell them from where they are. And that's a different kind of globalization.

But in a world where we have all that localization reversing the globalization metric, countries may become less inter-dependent, need each other less, and so more bellicose. You're less likely to start a war with your major trading partner.

Trump, of course, is still fighting the last battle rather than thinking about the next one.

I agree with this, and all of it underscores the idiocy of the Trump message on globalization.

What we should be talking about is what's really going to savage labor, everywhere: automation.

And automation exacerbates conflict. Govts filled with angry unemployed people sprout nationalist sentiments and start looking for scapegoats in other nations.

Anti-globalization here is, I think, a desperate lashing out at "others" where the disenfranchised cannot lash out at technology. It's pathetic.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

But in a world where we have all that localization reversing the globalization metric, countries may become less inter-dependent, need each other less, and so more bellicose. You're less likely to start a war with your major trading partner.

This is an interesting notion, but it seems to me to rest on a mistaken idea of why countries go to war. If globalization causes discontent (think of Sebby's explanation for Trump -- all that economic anxiety), that dislocation seems likely to lead to bellicose behavior. I don't think countries go to war for rational reasons, in the sense that war is rarely beneficial for the country as a whole, but because of agency problems -- the country becomes susceptible politically to do things that benefit some people within it, like going to war. I'm sure Ukraine is a big trading partner for Russia, but that doesn't seem to have dissuaded Putin from war -- perhaps the opposite is true.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I agree with this, and all of it underscores the idiocy of the Trump message on globalization.

What we should be talking about is what's really going to savage labor, everywhere: automation.

And automation exacerbates conflict. Govts filled with angry unemployed people sprout nationalist sentiments and start looking for scapegoats in other nations.

Anti-globalization here is, I think, a desperate lashing out at "others" where the disenfranchised cannot lash out at technology. It's pathetic.

If it's this simple, we were all better off in a pre-industrial economy. Of course, we weren't, because the same technological progress that eliminates jobs also confers great benefits by making things cheaper. There are winners and losers, always, and there is no simple proposition that will tell you whether the winners will outnumber the losers, or how the politics of it will play out.

If we had a more representative, better functioning legislature, you would expect to see the gains from technological progress shared more broadly, and less discontent. (Not just a US point.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This is an interesting notion, but it seems to me to rest on a mistaken idea of why countries go to war. If globalization causes discontent (think of Sebby's explanation for Trump -- all that economic anxiety), that dislocation seems likely to lead to bellicose behavior. I don't think countries go to war for rational reasons, in the sense that war is rarely beneficial for the country as a whole, but because of agency problems -- the country becomes susceptible politically to do things that benefit some people within it, like going to war. I'm sure Ukraine is a big trading partner for Russia, but that doesn't seem to have dissuaded Putin from war -- perhaps the opposite is true.

I don't think globalization necessarily causes discontent.

I think having work that sucks and even then not enough of it causes discontent. People are blaming that on globalization (Mexico has our jobs!), forgetting other sides of globalization (like inbound investment and all the brain-drain immigration). Automation is one of the causes, as Sebby pointed out, but another cause I'd call out is the round of union busting that started with Reagan and continued pretty much through Bush II, just slowing down during Clinton's term. I think there are a lot of other causes, too. But the globalized workers hanging out on the campus of that Syrian-founded tech company in Silicon Valley whose phones we all use, for example, don't seem that discontent.

I keep coming back to Marxism 101 - workers of the world unite! The solution has to be a cross border one, not a national protectionist one. TPP is a start, since it includes provisions that protect unions and bar slave labor in the developing countries of Asia that are signatories (e.g., not China).

The most interesting place I've ever been where these issues were really getting tackled in a provocative and thoughtful way is the CGI. Really.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If it's this simple, we were all better off in a pre-industrial economy. Of course, we weren't, because the same technological progress that eliminates jobs also confers great benefits by making things cheaper. There are winners and losers, always, and there is no simple proposition that will tell you whether the winners will outnumber the losers, or how the politics of it will play out.

If we had a more representative, better functioning legislature, you would expect to see the gains from technological progress shared more broadly, and less discontent. (Not just a US point.)

By the way, on the war stuff, I'm about 3/4 serious.

Generally, no one wants to bomb their own property. If US investors own a bunch of factories in Pakistan, there will be a powerful group of people opposing war with Pakistan.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The solution has to be a cross border one, not a national protectionist one.

What are you smoking? We can't agree on anything as a country, let alone when you pull other countries into it.

Globalization will continue, because technology -- information technology, satellites, airplanes, shipping, etc. -- will continue to make it cheaper to communicate and travel and transport things across borders. There will be winners and losers, and they will continue to fight over the ground rules through the political process. The winners will generally win these fights, because they have more money and everyone likes a winner, but sometimes the losers will gain some power, and when they do there may be trouble.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

By the way, on the war stuff, I'm about 3/4 serious.

Generally, no one wants to bomb their own property. If US investors own a bunch of factories in Pakistan, there will be a powerful group of people opposing war with Pakistan.

Read Chris Hedges' book, War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning. It's uneven, but there's some good stuff about why your powerful investors sometimes win out and sometimes don't. There is not a lot of stuff that I read that has such resonance and staying power.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Read Chris Hedges' book, War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning. It's uneven, but there's some good stuff about why your powerful investors sometimes win out and sometimes don't. There is not a lot of stuff that I read that has such resonance and staying power.

2. And Empire of Delusion is also fantastic.

You realize I'm almost 1:1 with him on everything but solutions. Yet I have to listen to nerf minds here tell me I'm full of shit.

Listen to Hedges' podcast, Days of Revolt. It's depressing, but in world awash in lies, it's a nice blast of cold water in the face.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If it's this simple, we were all better off in a pre-industrial economy. Of course, we weren't, because the same technological progress that eliminates jobs also confers great benefits by making things cheaper. There are winners and losers, always, and there is no simple proposition that will tell you whether the winners will outnumber the losers, or how the politics of it will play out.

If we had a more representative, better functioning legislature, you would expect to see the gains from technological progress shared more broadly, and less discontent. (Not just a US point.)

Do yourself a favor and read Rise of the Robots by Martin Ford. Skip the first 100 pages (you know that story already) and read the projections of the future.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You realize I'm almost 1:1 with him on everything but solutions. Yet I have to listen to nerf minds here tell me I'm full of shit.

Not. Impressed. Did you ever read "A Brief History of Time"? Well, I'm 1:1 with Hawking on everything but wormholes, but the tedious addled-minded holier-than-thou simpletons on this board write me off as some sort of two-bit, funk-peddling jackass. There is no justice, man. No justice, no peace. You ever check out that Savoy Motel?

[Adder]

Robot panic is the inverse, but equally delusional, cousin of autonomous car utopia.

Both will cause significant changes over time, but not as quickly or as drastically as the breathless are predicting.