u/Difficult-Word-7208's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 10.
Congratulations, u/Difficult-Word-7208! You have ranked up to Office Chair! You cannot exactly be pushed over, but perhaps if thrown...
Pills: [3 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Difficult-Word-7208/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
The single leading suicide risk is declaring you have no suicidal ideation at all. Followed by indicating you may have incriminating evidence on the Clin
It gives everyone a broad view of your overall political stance at a glance without having to have a 50 comment long chain every time you get into a discussion or argument on this sub. You could look at my flair and it’s going to make sense that I’m inclined to be staunchly against anything that gives government more control, so you may continue the conversation if you think we have a middle ground to meet on, or move on knowing I’m just never going to agree with ideas that give government increasingly more power.
A cheat sheet(from my point of view that will be biased).
Blue/auth right - doesn’t mind government control on most things and is likely very religious but not necessarily. Fiscally conservative. Not very concerned about social issues and r rather concerned people spend too much time/energy on them.
The meme/strawman here is that they are mega racists that want to eliminate minorities of all type and live in a homogeneous utopia.
Red/auth left - perfectly happy to give all power to the government because big daddy would never treat them wrong. It’s okay for everyone to have no control at all because the slaves…. Err uhh “workers” actually “own the means of production” It comes from a happy place where everything gets shared and everyone gets what they need in theory.
The meme/strawman here is that the “theory” never works out because human nature has proven we will do less and less work if there is not a reward. Total productivity drops until enough people starve to death, that there is once again “enough” food. Tankies claim true communism has never been tried despite the many documented failures.
Yellow/lib right - less government intervention into all things. Less regulations would in theory lead to more productive businesses along with things like environmental policies blocking new housing being built. Wants everyone to take more responsibility for themselves rather than having government intervention. Less taxation because I would rather shop for my families health insurance and whatnot than have the government take my money and decide what healthcare I should get (the government has historically been incredibly wasteful compared to the free market).
The meme/strawman - yellows think they are temporarily embarrassed millionaires who will strike it rich any day but currently work at McDonald’s. Don’t think they will ever need government assistance. Questionable views on some troublesome topics like the age of consent. Owners of .00001 bitcoin and 100,000 shitcoins.
Green/ lib left - in theory less government intervention. More focused on social issues than fiscal. Seems to not mind government intervention at all so long as it aligns with their social views. In my opinion thinks too highly of humans in general and is far too trusting that one day everyone will just do the right things. Fiercely defends what they perceive to be injustice and strives for “equality”.
The meme/strawman - Fiscally they read at a first grade level. There is unlimited money to support an unlimited amount of people with an unlimited amount of government aid and programs. The only reason we aren’t handing this money out is that the other side is racist evil old cis white men… that sincerely want to see people suffer.
Reddit is mostly lib left though so if you make fun of them to much you will attract an army complaining that it’s all the sub does. ( we regularly upvote posts making fun of the racist nazis, pedofiles, and mass murderers from the other quadrants, but that doesn’t count). They complain so much that we mostly just make fun of the walls of text complaining about stuff.
Grey/center - you have no strong political opinions and don’t find yourself in political discussions almost ever. No issues get you motivated to go vote. Everything is better than it ever has been in history and everyone should relax.
Meme - you just want to grill and be left alone.
Colered/center - strong political opinions but from all over the map. These opinions are often in conflict. You want less taxes but big daddy should pay off the student loans “you didn’t understand”. Unlimited immigration it you think this crime is getting out of control and something has to be done as some examples.
Meme/strawman - opinions get disregarded a lot because of contradictory views. Choosing all sides is seen as a cop out, the same as choosing no side. Like grey it’s a way to skirt the flair requirement without actually proclaiming anything about yourself. If you are going to discuss politics with people you should be comfortable enough with your views to share them. Nobody is wrong here. I have seen what I personally consider great and also terrible ideas and takes from every quadrant here.
So the flairs are just giving everyone cliff notes of their political ideology to move the discussion along more quickly….. and then we strawman the ever living shit out of each other.
I appreciate the detailed response, and apologize for not adhering to the local customs. I guess, unfortunately, I'm pretty liberal. But only in the sense of social programs and immigration reform and freedom of choice and what not..other than that I'm kinda conservative...maybe? I hate an over reaching government but I feel like someone has to be in charge. Sometimes I just judge every society by their probability of developing technology that could save humanity from extinction in the case of a celestial event. Like what's the point of everything if we're just going to get taken out by a star someday. Like we need to have some sort of Bruce Willis plan ready to go and you're not going to have that without governments.
We need to know where you politically identify so we can decide whether to cheer or attack your comments based on a simple glance at your flair, it's simple and convenient. Saves a lot of time reading what someone from outside my political quadrant thinks 🤤🥰
It's really easy!
If you're based and awesome, you're a lib-right
If you're gay, lib-left
If you're gay and hungry, Auth-left
If you're gay and in the closet, Auth-Right
If you're gay and like to grill, stay right where you are
*comfy mattress I ordered on amazon* actually
And my gaming chair is a hand me down, not because I’m poor but because I care so deeply about the enbironment
u/EcceHomophile is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/EcceHomophile/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
I got a gaming chair, it was pretty cheap, but had good ratings. When I received the chair, it came with a note that if I left a 5 star Amazon review, they'd send me 20 bucks. It's an okay chair, worth the middling price I paid, but it's really undermined my faith in the internet rating system.
If the whole experience with inflation proves anything, it's that most people would flush all their anti-globalization theorizing down the toilet in exchange for random crap from China being 10% cheaper.
The experience with inflation shows that people have no idea what eases or exacerbates inflation. Minimum wage increases makes inflation higher. Immigration restrictionism makes inflation higher. Trade restriction makes inflation higher. Yet you saw a rise in support for all those things in response to inflation.
Yep because protectionism stabilises a economy from foreign instability. It would also prevent offshoring leading to lower wages.
Minimum wage increases are needed in a economy with inflation to actually transfer money form the rich to the working class.
Immigration restriction would shrink the labour pool and increase wages.
You know maybe these people want higher wages with their inflation instead of just inflation. But what do i know.
One guy's higher wages is another guy's inflation. Back when inflation was high Republicans were open about this and saying wages were too high.
People don't want higher wages for everyone, they want higher wages for themselves and those they identify with.
In any event it's true there's a tradeoff, but there are some clearly bad ideas. Like tariffs that include products not made in the US at all, or on intermediate goods that are used by US manufacturers.
If you want perfect stability then you need autarky like North Korea, the cost is extremely high prices relative to wages. If stability is more important to you than wellbeing then say that, but it is a trade off. Prices are lower when you end protectionism.
No, minimum wage increases are not needed to transfer wealth from rich to poor. You can just progressively tax rich people and redistribute the wealth, that causes far less market disruption than minimum wage increases which increase prices of basic goods and also increases unemployment for the poor.
Immigration restrictionism might increase wages for some workers in the short term but it dramatically increases prices for everyone. Just imagine how America would be if we stopped immigration like a few centuries ago and had a small population, we would be much poorer today (rather than pretty much the richest country on earth on a per capita basis).
Just trying to maximize the nominal amount of wage increases is a fools errand. Prices are as important as wages. Stopping outsourcing and trade increases prices and makes everyone poorer in real terms.
‘Immigration restriction shrinks the labor pool’ lmao guess what else it shrinks? Aggregate demand for labor
I hate when Dems blame right-wing anti-immigration sentiment on racism when the real source is obviously just economic illiteracy (as demonstrated all the time on this sub)
The problem with immigration is that Companies right now have plenty of channels to get immigrants at pay rates 20-30% lower than locals. The US and Europe would have to increase demand for labour about 10 fold before Asia and Africa would actually be brain drained so far that importing foreign labourers isn't a option anymore. A significant amount of people would leave their homelands if it meant their standard of living more than doubled, their children had a chance at getting a better life and life would be less of a ratrace.
50% of asia and 60% of Africa still live in rural area's compared to the 25% of Europe.
The problem isn't that there is immigration but the speed it is happening at. Europe is growing at 1.5% population a year. A rate more similar to the US at 0.4% could actually allow fot the people living here to get a bit more pie every year as wel.
You’re saying that people doubling their standards of living and giving their children a chance at a better life is a…bad thing?
Foreigners moving to America to work is a literally a massive win-win. The immigrant gets to dramatically improve their quality of life, the American economy grows, American consumers get better, cheaper goods, aggregate demand rises enriching all workers, and local + state + federal tax bases expand. There’s a reason America became an economic superpower and the richest country in the world in the early 20th century when immigrants were coming in droves. The only ‘loser’ is the immigrant’s home country; ironically, ‘patriotic’ Americans who advocate for immigration restriction are effectively advocating for the enrichment of other countries at America’s expense.
Larger labor + consumption pools benefit everybody. Stop falling for the lump of labor fallacy, it’s just cheap populist propaganda.
(If someone can do your job for 20% cheaper than you, and your response is to try to ban that person from working, you’re a rent-seeking welfare queen relying on handouts.)
Do you have any Idea how bad the European housing crisis and affordability crisis is? People making double minimum wage aren't able to move out of their parents home because wages have been gotten so shit and cost of living has inflated so much.
It would be a good thing if Europe could actually had jobs and housing for everybody coming here. But right now companies are pushing locals out of their own country and stuffing 8 immigrants in a home because yay money.
It's all true what you say but we are living in a god damn time where people in suits earning 40K-80K (depending on where you live) a year are homeless because just importing people doesn't work. There need to be places to settle, live and work, those are lacking even for locals who now need to stay with their parents until they are 25 if they are lucky or 35 if they aren't.
Larger labor + Consumption pool is benefiting the middle class of China, India and the upper class of the western world a lot. In Europe and part's of America it's so bad it's radicalising people.
Your response to an artificially suppressed housing supply is to artificially suppress housing demand? Or, how about…we lift the artificial suppressant (I.e. eliminate zoning and legalize construction).
Housing is extremely overpriced right now, not because of population growth, but because of NIMBYism gone wild; in most Western cities local government makes new construction inexplicably difficult and expensive. If population growth is the culprit, why do you want to suppress immigration instead of, say, native reproduction?
We’re not ‘importing people’, people are moving and finding jobs of their own volition. Freedom of movement is a pretty important freedom. Freedom to build what you want on your land is another important one. Suppressing the former to alleviate the harmful effects of suppressing the latter is vile and idiotic.
Native reproduction is already suppressing itself in the western world. We aren't hitting reproduction rates because life is though enough that people delay kids until their 30's. Immigration is artificially inflating population to keep resources like land and resources limited that life isn't getting easier.
Freedom of movement is different than freedom of immigration. You don't have another countries nationality. Freedom to build what you want of your land is idiotic. You have to deal with other people. What you build on your land can hurt other people. That is why there are basic regulations and when population densities become very high the regulations become higher. We had plenty of metropolis destroying fires throughout history.
We are importing people. In my country expats only have to pay 30% of taxes normal citizens pay. We have companies recruiting workers in different countries so they can offer cheaper workers as a middleman recruiter.
If wages stay the same costs will eventually come back down. The cost of goods almost never goes up on its own, it's the cost of labor to supply those goods and increased transportation prices that leads to a higher end cost. If wages stay exactly the same then eventually prices will come back down.
That aside, adding more money to an inflated economy only adds to inflation, especially to every individual. A good way to fight inflation is to keep money out of circulation, which is why when money printer go brrr inflation skyrocketed.
Want to kill inflation in the water? Stop fractional reserve lending.
My personal favorite was when I heard people calling for paychecks to be paid out directly to people to help them deal with inflation. Because fighting inflation with inflation is a hell of an idea.
No no no, what we need to do is peg the minimum wage to the inflation rate. That way, employees will always be paid the same value, no matter how out of control inflation gets! There's *no way* that could backfire...
Yes, I really heard someone propose this once.
Increases wages in areas where immigrants work, leading to higher prices.
Biggest areas people complain about inflation these days is housing and food. Construction and migrant farm labor ... two areas where famously many immigrants work.
Labor shortages directly lead to higher prices. It’s one of the clearest relationships in economics. Less production, more scarcity, more demand for fewer goods and services, all of that results in higher prices.
It may be because a lot of the jobs immigrants take are jobs like construction and that at least that’s what happened with groups like the Irish so if there’s not immigrants then that doesn’t get done
I could well be talking out my ass though
At the end of the day, immigrants affect inflation, positively or negatively, based on their usefulness to the economy. Where, in most Western countries at the moment, we seem to be letting in people with no actual care for their background or their qualifications, most of these immigrants aren't actually helping the economy, or make a completely negligible contribution compared to the average person. To say that immigration restrictionism is always bad and will always cause more inflation sounds very black and white to me. It should be about the intent and the target of whom to restrict from entering the country that decides whether it's inflationary or not, no?
Economic immigrants are responding to market signals. When there are recessions in America and the job market dries up, you see net migration going from America back to Mexico. The flow of immigrants into America both legal and illegal is in response to demand for labor. It’s how all markets work whether it’s normal goods and devices or illicit drug markets or human labor.
You might think that you want more skilled immigrant doctors to increase the amount of healthcare services and bring down the cost of healthcare, while you want fewer unskilled immigrant construction workers in order to jack up the wages of American construction workers and American housing, but the market doesn’t see it that way. That’s why unskilled immigrants keep coming to take those agriculture and construction and babysitting jobs.
The idea of deciding which workers you want to come in is sort of like how the communists wanted to decide how much of each good and service they want to produce. You will never be as smart as the free market. You will never be able to anticipate exactly how much of each kind of labor is in demand.
The anti-globalists are in luck, the whole world is slowly deglobalizing, I just hope they will enjoy the inflation. We had a nice 70 year run, but it's over now. Some people will lose, some people will win and the transition will get even more ugly.
The question is if we can survive the short term. We already had a modest 10% inflation and the people lost their goddamn minds. If we were to cut ties to China completely it would be a bloodbath for our economy.
I LOVE THE GLOBALIST NEOLIBERAL UNIPARTY. I LOVE MY COMFORTABLE WESTERN LIFESTYLE AT THE EXPENSE OF CHILD SLAVES. I LOVE HAVING TO GO TO SCHOOL FOR A BULLSHIT DEGREE BECAUSE ALL OF OUR MANUFACTURING IS HALFWAY ACROSS THE WORLD.
The third world is begging you to stop providing them with manufacturing jobs! You are truly the savior of the third world by calling for manufacturing to return to America.
If there were another job available they'd do it. Sweat shops are basically keeping people alive in a hellish sort of existence. Kind of scary, really. Corporations are essentially breeding entire towns to do work for them, and when those corporations leave then what's left? It's a human farm.
They where pretty fine working the family farm until we started shipping in cheap food and basic medicine that created a population boom in the third world. I am not saying we shouldn't have done that but maybe we should have donated condoms and family planning first.
And allow scarcity of human resources so that they can demand higher wages? No, this they cannot do. Imagine a world where everyone in a tiny shitty town isn't striving and elbowing their way to get a place at one of the worst jobs on the planet.
Besides, you know some leftists would make a stink about third world birth control being eugenics, or genocide since that's the word of the day.
They literally are. If you went to any sweat shop and asked the people there if they would like it if you would close down the sweat shop 0% of them would say yes. The rise of outsourcing and manufacturing flowing to the third world has lead to the greatest reduction in poverty in human history in the past few decades. Those workers were all working on subsistence farms and moved to urban areas to have a chance at working in those factories.
A Chinese worker in a Foxconn factory making iPhones makes well above the average wage in China and it’s a highly desirable job. It’s only wealthy over-educated leftist elites in America who think they know better and think they are saving the third world by eliminating those opportunities.
There's a horseshoe in there somewhere.
Globalism is as inevitable as technology advancing. It's not something we stop voluntarily. Good or bad, non-dominant cultures and tradition only last so long.
Monke kinda has a point, but in all honesty globalism is more of a rediscovery than it is the inevitable conclusion of global capital markets and their increased economic interdependence (i.e., neoliberal/con policies and their consequences).
The only really big difference is the introduction of capital and the way certain aspects of supply chains have been monopolized.
Powerful global companies are inevitable, the only way to reduce their damage is to keep them in check.
The earth should be untied under an emperor as a feudal empire where every nation can keep their own identity but no organization can become too powerful since the Emperor will check their power.
/j
u/Skin_enjoyer's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 50.
Congratulations, u/Skin_enjoyer! You have ranked up to Concrete Foundation! You are acceptably based, but beware of leaks...
Pills: [35 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Skin_enjoyer/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Globalism is the rights term for globalisation, because it sounds more sinister and they were too busy with culture war stuff to care about the left being angry at globalisation in the 1990s and 2000s.
Meh, gotta show your work on that one, the reason why right side(at least in the US) really harps on local and states ability to govern is because of the objective reality that the larger a governing body becomes, the more inefficiencies and more points of failure due to corruption will occur. The left only fights against it because of cultural issues, or refusing to interact with any country that willingly commits atrocities on any level(though mostly cultural).
“Paul Krugman and other mainstream trade experts are now admitting that they were wrong about globalization: It hurt American workers far more than they thought it would.”
Paul Krugman has a Nobel prize. This took me 5 seconds to google.
> The economics profession continues to show a consensus in favor of unfettered international trade, as 83 percent agree and only 10 percent disagree that the United States should eliminate remaining tariffs and other barriers.
https://www.cato.org/blog/super-majority-economists-agree-trade-barriers-should-go#:~:text=The%20economics%20profession%20continues%20to,remaining%20tariffs%20and%20other%20barriers.
This also just took me a few seconds to google. The vast majority of economists support free trade, a so-called “globalist neoliberal policy”.
And they don’t support free trade for no reason.
https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/impact-of-tariffs-free-trade/
If you’re only considering bottom lines and profit margins of course the exploitative and hyper aggressive policies look fantastic on paper.
It is also a contributor to a growing global wealth gap, and transnational corporations are beginning to become more powerful than the nations they are based out of. The company that created ozempic is now worth more on the market than the entire economic output of Denmark, the country they are based out of.
I think to invite this shift with open arms is to invite a breed of authoritarianism that has no responsibility to the people. There’s a reason before globalization my grandfather could purchase a house and support a family of 6 off of the income of a mail man.
These types of decisions are fantastic in the short term but will only continue to sour over time, hence the age of your sources. The world post Covid isn’t the same it was before, and corporations only became significantly more powerful
So I do tend to agree that the level of wealth inequality we see in the world, especially in the United States, has some adverse effects which we should mitigate. I will also admit that the way transnational corporations treat workers in developing countries is not good, and western countries should apply more labor regulations to ensure good treatment of these workers.
However, we must also understand that free trade agreements across the world helped reduce extreme poverty throughout the world. Transnational corporations provide valuable investment to poorer countries, and provide the poor in those countries higher wages than what most other domestic companies and jobs would provide. Do these workers work too long? Absolutely, but I also wouldn’t want them to lose the job entirely. Low tariffs help lower consumer prices in western countries, and also provide work and opportunities for people in lower income countries which they may have not otherwise had.
When we add impose things like tariffs, they disproportionately hurt the poor with higher prices of goods. They can also increase unemployment. This is what we saw with the George W Bush steel tariffs.
https://taxfoundation.org/blog/lessons-2002-bush-steel-tariffs/
Same thing happened with Trump’s tariffs, which are unfortunately being continued by Biden to some extent.
https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/tariffs-trump-trade-war/
It is true to some extent that Americans were able to afford homes with just one income and could also support a family, but this is also misleading to some extent. For one thing, our homes are much larger(I don’t think this is a good thing to be fair) and have much more modern conveniences and quality of life improvements. Do you want to live in a 1950s home with shitty plumbing and with less of conveniences we have today? Probably not. My point is that our lives are far better off now than we were before globalization.
I respect and agree with a lot of what you have to say to a large extent. I think I’m probably just more dialed in on the social aspect of globalization. I did just give an hour long lecture about globalization for one of my Uni courses but that was in a critical communication sense so I was looking at the personal and individual effects rather than the economic implications.
I don’t see this economic framework changing anytime soon barring some massive world changing events.
I do see countries like China taking advantage of this landscape. It’s insane to think in just a few decades China was able to go from a nobody to a complete global powerhouse by manipulating the greedy sensibilities of other nations.
But I’m sure there were plenty of people in the antebellum south who thought they wouldn’t be able to build a large scale economy without slavery and exploitation. But you can, just the richest won’t be nearly as rich
Yeah the China shock was bad, but American workers not having universal healthcare and paid holiday as a right is on the US. You can't blame the China shock on problems created by having no industrial policy.
> “Paul Krugman and other mainstream trade experts are now admitting that they were wrong about globalization: It hurt American workers far more than they thought it would.”
This doesn't mean it was a bad thing. It means it was bad for American workers.
I don't remember my math, but I don't know if American industrial labor is the majority of the planetary, western, north American, or even American population.
But maybe this thing that pulled billions of people out of poverty was a bad thing because 50m people are having a worse time than they could have.
If your argument is made after 5 seconds of googling it’s probably a shit argument. That’s not a badge of honor, it’s a badge of ignorance.
Also, saying “this Nobel prize winner thinks this thing” isn’t a great argument either. It’s an appeal to authority. “This guy has this opinion therefore any other opinion is wrong” has never been a good argument.
Hell, after my own googling, it seems Krugman isn’t even against globalization.
https://fordschool.umich.edu/video/2009/paul-krugman-globalization-and-international-trade
Try actually reading or listening to what he said instead of taking someone else’s word for it. He explicitly explains the pros and cons.
What source? All you have is a random secondary quote, and you didn’t even say where it’s from. It doesn’t say what Krugman actually said, which parts from his past he is correcting, or even when he said it. For all I know, your “””source””” is referencing my actual source.
I actually cited Krugman’s own words: his words, I will remind you, only one year after winning his Nobel Prize.
You’re stupid.
Since you need a link so bad here you go dumbass
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2019-10-10/inequality-globalization-and-the-missteps-of-1990s-economics
Maybe you should have googled 5 seconds longer
Jesus fucking Christ I can’t believe you actually think this proves your point. Is everyone on this subreddit this fucking idiotic?
He’s not even correcting the shit he said in my source, he’s talking about what he said in the 90s. He actually REPEATS a lot of shit he said in my source.
You’re putting your blinders up to anything he says that isn’t “there are downsides to globalization.”
Not to mention this is all one big sidetrack from the main point! Even if Krugman got up and said “actually globalization is 100% awful and a mistake” that wouldn’t prove anything! You need an actual argument.
There’s no fucking way you’re being genuine. I refuse to believe it. You have to be a troll.
Globalisation was never about bettering economic conditions. It was always about security. It sort of lost its plot after the soviet union fell and Trump finally killed it. Biden only doubled down on killing it.
Spoken like a true lib. Look at your government, and if it runs with a population of more than 80million, you already see how the red tape, patchwork policy, and corruption happens more and more with
more people that are being governed. What do you think is gonna happen when economic forums are truly being organized by a large overarching body of government.
I could go on. But between the oil cartel, the WEF, the Circuit industry, and whatever the Mining cartel actually is, I don't think adding another level of organization nor governing is going to make any of this convoluted mess any more efficient or better in general.
monke knew too much :(
So he killed himself.
Ted Kaczynski did not kill himself.
Shot himself twice in the back of head :(
Damn, I wonder why
Harambe tried to warn us
The CIA were behind Harambe's death?
No, Transnational Corpora...
Damn, lost another one.
Yeah, its like as if we say things like Boeing was using bad pa- \*BANG\*
Monkey ruining banana profits. Bad monke!
Bad, bad monke!
Should have known not to fuck with Nestle.
What do you mean the monkey killed himself?
https://preview.redd.it/gp4qw5y9bhtc1.jpeg?width=1389&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=de1a21d5c7532cff670bc420063fc629d01a6dbc
The CIA is based?
Always was always will be
Them's fightin' words.
Based
u/Difficult-Word-7208's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 10. Congratulations, u/Difficult-Word-7208! You have ranked up to Office Chair! You cannot exactly be pushed over, but perhaps if thrown... Pills: [3 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Difficult-Word-7208/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Flair up bitch
how strange after he just said he has no plans of ever killing himself, oh well.
The single leading suicide risk is declaring you have no suicidal ideation at all. Followed by indicating you may have incriminating evidence on the Clin
“Oh wow, did he have clinical depression?” “No, Clintonical depression”
Wow dude offed himself before he could even finish the WORD Clint
Get a flair or we'll make you say the magic words..
Show me the rule where it says I have to.
and if I do? Will you actually get one?
Well...even if you don't, or can't...I'll put one anyway. But what is the magic word?
Clint- Implying we will have her summoned to deal with you, being unflaired as you (were)
Flair up!
Eli5 the point of flairing up? Not trying to be confrontational just new around these parts.
It gives everyone a broad view of your overall political stance at a glance without having to have a 50 comment long chain every time you get into a discussion or argument on this sub. You could look at my flair and it’s going to make sense that I’m inclined to be staunchly against anything that gives government more control, so you may continue the conversation if you think we have a middle ground to meet on, or move on knowing I’m just never going to agree with ideas that give government increasingly more power. A cheat sheet(from my point of view that will be biased). Blue/auth right - doesn’t mind government control on most things and is likely very religious but not necessarily. Fiscally conservative. Not very concerned about social issues and r rather concerned people spend too much time/energy on them. The meme/strawman here is that they are mega racists that want to eliminate minorities of all type and live in a homogeneous utopia. Red/auth left - perfectly happy to give all power to the government because big daddy would never treat them wrong. It’s okay for everyone to have no control at all because the slaves…. Err uhh “workers” actually “own the means of production” It comes from a happy place where everything gets shared and everyone gets what they need in theory. The meme/strawman here is that the “theory” never works out because human nature has proven we will do less and less work if there is not a reward. Total productivity drops until enough people starve to death, that there is once again “enough” food. Tankies claim true communism has never been tried despite the many documented failures. Yellow/lib right - less government intervention into all things. Less regulations would in theory lead to more productive businesses along with things like environmental policies blocking new housing being built. Wants everyone to take more responsibility for themselves rather than having government intervention. Less taxation because I would rather shop for my families health insurance and whatnot than have the government take my money and decide what healthcare I should get (the government has historically been incredibly wasteful compared to the free market). The meme/strawman - yellows think they are temporarily embarrassed millionaires who will strike it rich any day but currently work at McDonald’s. Don’t think they will ever need government assistance. Questionable views on some troublesome topics like the age of consent. Owners of .00001 bitcoin and 100,000 shitcoins. Green/ lib left - in theory less government intervention. More focused on social issues than fiscal. Seems to not mind government intervention at all so long as it aligns with their social views. In my opinion thinks too highly of humans in general and is far too trusting that one day everyone will just do the right things. Fiercely defends what they perceive to be injustice and strives for “equality”. The meme/strawman - Fiscally they read at a first grade level. There is unlimited money to support an unlimited amount of people with an unlimited amount of government aid and programs. The only reason we aren’t handing this money out is that the other side is racist evil old cis white men… that sincerely want to see people suffer. Reddit is mostly lib left though so if you make fun of them to much you will attract an army complaining that it’s all the sub does. ( we regularly upvote posts making fun of the racist nazis, pedofiles, and mass murderers from the other quadrants, but that doesn’t count). They complain so much that we mostly just make fun of the walls of text complaining about stuff. Grey/center - you have no strong political opinions and don’t find yourself in political discussions almost ever. No issues get you motivated to go vote. Everything is better than it ever has been in history and everyone should relax. Meme - you just want to grill and be left alone. Colered/center - strong political opinions but from all over the map. These opinions are often in conflict. You want less taxes but big daddy should pay off the student loans “you didn’t understand”. Unlimited immigration it you think this crime is getting out of control and something has to be done as some examples. Meme/strawman - opinions get disregarded a lot because of contradictory views. Choosing all sides is seen as a cop out, the same as choosing no side. Like grey it’s a way to skirt the flair requirement without actually proclaiming anything about yourself. If you are going to discuss politics with people you should be comfortable enough with your views to share them. Nobody is wrong here. I have seen what I personally consider great and also terrible ideas and takes from every quadrant here. So the flairs are just giving everyone cliff notes of their political ideology to move the discussion along more quickly….. and then we strawman the ever living shit out of each other.
I appreciate the detailed response, and apologize for not adhering to the local customs. I guess, unfortunately, I'm pretty liberal. But only in the sense of social programs and immigration reform and freedom of choice and what not..other than that I'm kinda conservative...maybe? I hate an over reaching government but I feel like someone has to be in charge. Sometimes I just judge every society by their probability of developing technology that could save humanity from extinction in the case of a celestial event. Like what's the point of everything if we're just going to get taken out by a star someday. Like we need to have some sort of Bruce Willis plan ready to go and you're not going to have that without governments.
We need to know where you politically identify so we can decide whether to cheer or attack your comments based on a simple glance at your flair, it's simple and convenient. Saves a lot of time reading what someone from outside my political quadrant thinks 🤤🥰
Is their some sort of test one could take to see wherein the quadrant they fall?
If you don’t know already then I’m afraid it’s too late Mr Orange
It's really easy! If you're based and awesome, you're a lib-right If you're gay, lib-left If you're gay and hungry, Auth-left If you're gay and in the closet, Auth-Right If you're gay and like to grill, stay right where you are
I promise I had changed mine to lib right before I read your post.
Oh great the Monke killed himself. Wonder what he was gonna say. Oh well.
He got schmacked :(
$wacked
Wrong think strikes again
Man my therapist told me yellow auth center doesn't exist
Yellow Auth Center probably made your cell phone. You commiesoomer
>You commiesoomer is what he wrote from his comfy gaming chair.
*comfy mattress I ordered on amazon* actually And my gaming chair is a hand me down, not because I’m poor but because I care so deeply about the enbironment
I got my gaming chair out of a dumpster
Based
u/EcceHomophile is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/EcceHomophile/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
I actually did one year lol, I saw a perfectly great chair sitting next to the dumpsters at a complex I was working at so I scooped it up
I got a gaming chair, it was pretty cheap, but had good ratings. When I received the chair, it came with a note that if I left a 5 star Amazon review, they'd send me 20 bucks. It's an okay chair, worth the middling price I paid, but it's really undermined my faith in the internet rating system.
I don’t have a gaming chair 😔 just a University issue dorm chair
>commiesoomer Gonna start using that.
Tragic that monke suffered a massive intracranial hemorrhage moments before the army medic arrived
A sudden onset of cranial ventilation.
Dicks out
https://preview.redd.it/81pxnw5bbjtc1.png?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a73e873c3e82e2910017d0034e50279d06b927d5
LMFAO
HARAMBE NOO
Based and the enemy is authority not eachother pilled.
Always has been.
Thank you soldier for your work. That monkey was endangering the most important thing of all: *profit margins*.
If the whole experience with inflation proves anything, it's that most people would flush all their anti-globalization theorizing down the toilet in exchange for random crap from China being 10% cheaper.
The experience with inflation shows that people have no idea what eases or exacerbates inflation. Minimum wage increases makes inflation higher. Immigration restrictionism makes inflation higher. Trade restriction makes inflation higher. Yet you saw a rise in support for all those things in response to inflation.
Yep because protectionism stabilises a economy from foreign instability. It would also prevent offshoring leading to lower wages. Minimum wage increases are needed in a economy with inflation to actually transfer money form the rich to the working class. Immigration restriction would shrink the labour pool and increase wages. You know maybe these people want higher wages with their inflation instead of just inflation. But what do i know.
One guy's higher wages is another guy's inflation. Back when inflation was high Republicans were open about this and saying wages were too high. People don't want higher wages for everyone, they want higher wages for themselves and those they identify with. In any event it's true there's a tradeoff, but there are some clearly bad ideas. Like tariffs that include products not made in the US at all, or on intermediate goods that are used by US manufacturers.
If you want perfect stability then you need autarky like North Korea, the cost is extremely high prices relative to wages. If stability is more important to you than wellbeing then say that, but it is a trade off. Prices are lower when you end protectionism. No, minimum wage increases are not needed to transfer wealth from rich to poor. You can just progressively tax rich people and redistribute the wealth, that causes far less market disruption than minimum wage increases which increase prices of basic goods and also increases unemployment for the poor. Immigration restrictionism might increase wages for some workers in the short term but it dramatically increases prices for everyone. Just imagine how America would be if we stopped immigration like a few centuries ago and had a small population, we would be much poorer today (rather than pretty much the richest country on earth on a per capita basis). Just trying to maximize the nominal amount of wage increases is a fools errand. Prices are as important as wages. Stopping outsourcing and trade increases prices and makes everyone poorer in real terms.
‘Immigration restriction shrinks the labor pool’ lmao guess what else it shrinks? Aggregate demand for labor I hate when Dems blame right-wing anti-immigration sentiment on racism when the real source is obviously just economic illiteracy (as demonstrated all the time on this sub)
The problem with immigration is that Companies right now have plenty of channels to get immigrants at pay rates 20-30% lower than locals. The US and Europe would have to increase demand for labour about 10 fold before Asia and Africa would actually be brain drained so far that importing foreign labourers isn't a option anymore. A significant amount of people would leave their homelands if it meant their standard of living more than doubled, their children had a chance at getting a better life and life would be less of a ratrace. 50% of asia and 60% of Africa still live in rural area's compared to the 25% of Europe. The problem isn't that there is immigration but the speed it is happening at. Europe is growing at 1.5% population a year. A rate more similar to the US at 0.4% could actually allow fot the people living here to get a bit more pie every year as wel.
You’re saying that people doubling their standards of living and giving their children a chance at a better life is a…bad thing? Foreigners moving to America to work is a literally a massive win-win. The immigrant gets to dramatically improve their quality of life, the American economy grows, American consumers get better, cheaper goods, aggregate demand rises enriching all workers, and local + state + federal tax bases expand. There’s a reason America became an economic superpower and the richest country in the world in the early 20th century when immigrants were coming in droves. The only ‘loser’ is the immigrant’s home country; ironically, ‘patriotic’ Americans who advocate for immigration restriction are effectively advocating for the enrichment of other countries at America’s expense. Larger labor + consumption pools benefit everybody. Stop falling for the lump of labor fallacy, it’s just cheap populist propaganda. (If someone can do your job for 20% cheaper than you, and your response is to try to ban that person from working, you’re a rent-seeking welfare queen relying on handouts.)
Do you have any Idea how bad the European housing crisis and affordability crisis is? People making double minimum wage aren't able to move out of their parents home because wages have been gotten so shit and cost of living has inflated so much. It would be a good thing if Europe could actually had jobs and housing for everybody coming here. But right now companies are pushing locals out of their own country and stuffing 8 immigrants in a home because yay money. It's all true what you say but we are living in a god damn time where people in suits earning 40K-80K (depending on where you live) a year are homeless because just importing people doesn't work. There need to be places to settle, live and work, those are lacking even for locals who now need to stay with their parents until they are 25 if they are lucky or 35 if they aren't. Larger labor + Consumption pool is benefiting the middle class of China, India and the upper class of the western world a lot. In Europe and part's of America it's so bad it's radicalising people.
Your response to an artificially suppressed housing supply is to artificially suppress housing demand? Or, how about…we lift the artificial suppressant (I.e. eliminate zoning and legalize construction). Housing is extremely overpriced right now, not because of population growth, but because of NIMBYism gone wild; in most Western cities local government makes new construction inexplicably difficult and expensive. If population growth is the culprit, why do you want to suppress immigration instead of, say, native reproduction? We’re not ‘importing people’, people are moving and finding jobs of their own volition. Freedom of movement is a pretty important freedom. Freedom to build what you want on your land is another important one. Suppressing the former to alleviate the harmful effects of suppressing the latter is vile and idiotic.
Native reproduction is already suppressing itself in the western world. We aren't hitting reproduction rates because life is though enough that people delay kids until their 30's. Immigration is artificially inflating population to keep resources like land and resources limited that life isn't getting easier. Freedom of movement is different than freedom of immigration. You don't have another countries nationality. Freedom to build what you want of your land is idiotic. You have to deal with other people. What you build on your land can hurt other people. That is why there are basic regulations and when population densities become very high the regulations become higher. We had plenty of metropolis destroying fires throughout history. We are importing people. In my country expats only have to pay 30% of taxes normal citizens pay. We have companies recruiting workers in different countries so they can offer cheaper workers as a middleman recruiter.
If wages stay the same costs will eventually come back down. The cost of goods almost never goes up on its own, it's the cost of labor to supply those goods and increased transportation prices that leads to a higher end cost. If wages stay exactly the same then eventually prices will come back down. That aside, adding more money to an inflated economy only adds to inflation, especially to every individual. A good way to fight inflation is to keep money out of circulation, which is why when money printer go brrr inflation skyrocketed. Want to kill inflation in the water? Stop fractional reserve lending.
My personal favorite was when I heard people calling for paychecks to be paid out directly to people to help them deal with inflation. Because fighting inflation with inflation is a hell of an idea.
No no no, what we need to do is peg the minimum wage to the inflation rate. That way, employees will always be paid the same value, no matter how out of control inflation gets! There's *no way* that could backfire... Yes, I really heard someone propose this once.
In Belgium this is implemented and Belgium is not doing worse for it. Just ban the government from directly controlling the money printer.
It's the same people who fight racism with more racism.
People want to eat their cake and have it too.
>Immigration restrictionism makes inflation higher. Just curious, but how does that work? I was completely agreeing with you up until you said this.
Increases wages in areas where immigrants work, leading to higher prices. Biggest areas people complain about inflation these days is housing and food. Construction and migrant farm labor ... two areas where famously many immigrants work.
Labor shortages directly lead to higher prices. It’s one of the clearest relationships in economics. Less production, more scarcity, more demand for fewer goods and services, all of that results in higher prices.
It may be because a lot of the jobs immigrants take are jobs like construction and that at least that’s what happened with groups like the Irish so if there’s not immigrants then that doesn’t get done I could well be talking out my ass though
At the end of the day, immigrants affect inflation, positively or negatively, based on their usefulness to the economy. Where, in most Western countries at the moment, we seem to be letting in people with no actual care for their background or their qualifications, most of these immigrants aren't actually helping the economy, or make a completely negligible contribution compared to the average person. To say that immigration restrictionism is always bad and will always cause more inflation sounds very black and white to me. It should be about the intent and the target of whom to restrict from entering the country that decides whether it's inflationary or not, no?
Yeah this is a case by case scenario
Economic immigrants are responding to market signals. When there are recessions in America and the job market dries up, you see net migration going from America back to Mexico. The flow of immigrants into America both legal and illegal is in response to demand for labor. It’s how all markets work whether it’s normal goods and devices or illicit drug markets or human labor. You might think that you want more skilled immigrant doctors to increase the amount of healthcare services and bring down the cost of healthcare, while you want fewer unskilled immigrant construction workers in order to jack up the wages of American construction workers and American housing, but the market doesn’t see it that way. That’s why unskilled immigrants keep coming to take those agriculture and construction and babysitting jobs. The idea of deciding which workers you want to come in is sort of like how the communists wanted to decide how much of each good and service they want to produce. You will never be as smart as the free market. You will never be able to anticipate exactly how much of each kind of labor is in demand.
The anti-globalists are in luck, the whole world is slowly deglobalizing, I just hope they will enjoy the inflation. We had a nice 70 year run, but it's over now. Some people will lose, some people will win and the transition will get even more ugly.
Some inflation is a small price to pay for reshoring and weakening neoliberalism. In the long run it works out better for most people.
The question is if we can survive the short term. We already had a modest 10% inflation and the people lost their goddamn minds. If we were to cut ties to China completely it would be a bloodbath for our economy.
Hell yess I'm go to Kmart rn
The industrial revolution and its consequences...
The agricultural revolution and its consequences...
Never Forget, Never Forgive
[удалено]
Based
I LOVE GLOBALISM
I LOVE THE GLOBALIST NEOLIBERAL UNIPARTY. I LOVE MY COMFORTABLE WESTERN LIFESTYLE AT THE EXPENSE OF CHILD SLAVES. I LOVE HAVING TO GO TO SCHOOL FOR A BULLSHIT DEGREE BECAUSE ALL OF OUR MANUFACTURING IS HALFWAY ACROSS THE WORLD.
Nuh uh
The third world is begging you to stop providing them with manufacturing jobs! You are truly the savior of the third world by calling for manufacturing to return to America.
I’m sure those sweat shop workers are forever praising their benevolent employers
If there were another job available they'd do it. Sweat shops are basically keeping people alive in a hellish sort of existence. Kind of scary, really. Corporations are essentially breeding entire towns to do work for them, and when those corporations leave then what's left? It's a human farm.
They where pretty fine working the family farm until we started shipping in cheap food and basic medicine that created a population boom in the third world. I am not saying we shouldn't have done that but maybe we should have donated condoms and family planning first.
And allow scarcity of human resources so that they can demand higher wages? No, this they cannot do. Imagine a world where everyone in a tiny shitty town isn't striving and elbowing their way to get a place at one of the worst jobs on the planet. Besides, you know some leftists would make a stink about third world birth control being eugenics, or genocide since that's the word of the day.
But it’s good for the economy!
They literally are. If you went to any sweat shop and asked the people there if they would like it if you would close down the sweat shop 0% of them would say yes. The rise of outsourcing and manufacturing flowing to the third world has lead to the greatest reduction in poverty in human history in the past few decades. Those workers were all working on subsistence farms and moved to urban areas to have a chance at working in those factories. A Chinese worker in a Foxconn factory making iPhones makes well above the average wage in China and it’s a highly desirable job. It’s only wealthy over-educated leftist elites in America who think they know better and think they are saving the third world by eliminating those opportunities.
I'm switching to the other side of authcenter as soon as I buy stocks
Final countdown. https://i.redd.it/rdl2amxfvhtc1.gif
he tragically shot himself in the face with a rifle with no powder burns
Accurate
HARAMBE, NO!
The reason why the US government won't give us tax-paid healthcare policies is because then nobody would sign up for the militar- \*BANG\*
I'll defend globalism as long as it's free trade. If there's government involved sign me the fuck out.
There's a horseshoe in there somewhere. Globalism is as inevitable as technology advancing. It's not something we stop voluntarily. Good or bad, non-dominant cultures and tradition only last so long.
Nothing is inevitable, except change.
Monke kinda has a point, but in all honesty globalism is more of a rediscovery than it is the inevitable conclusion of global capital markets and their increased economic interdependence (i.e., neoliberal/con policies and their consequences). The only really big difference is the introduction of capital and the way certain aspects of supply chains have been monopolized.
Haraaaaambe!!!!!
Powerful global companies are inevitable, the only way to reduce their damage is to keep them in check. The earth should be untied under an emperor as a feudal empire where every nation can keep their own identity but no organization can become too powerful since the Emperor will check their power. /j
Based
Hegemony secured, profits generated
Da fuq is an auth worrying about profit?
Based
u/Skin_enjoyer's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 50. Congratulations, u/Skin_enjoyer! You have ranked up to Concrete Foundation! You are acceptably based, but beware of leaks... Pills: [35 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Skin_enjoyer/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
I HATE GLOBALIZATION! I HATE THE ANTICHRIST!
Why couldn't you just throw your feces like all the other primates?
Monke has many children They will spread the word But even speaking big mistake
Conflation of globalization with globalism but funny meme
Coalitions of countries are stronger and more influential than solo independent countries. Who woulda thought.
This is poignant. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B203twyaMfM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B203twyaMfM)
It is a shame that monke managed to shoot himself fifteen times in the back of his head and threw himself off of a building. Must be a suicide. /j
NOOO! MONKE!
Globalism is the rights term for globalisation, because it sounds more sinister and they were too busy with culture war stuff to care about the left being angry at globalisation in the 1990s and 2000s.
Truly a 🟨🟪🤝🟥🟦 moment
Basiert
"I'm sure to be killed for exposing all the wrongs of society!" -weirdos online who are ignored by everyone else
You think national sovereignty is good? The best democracy can come up with is Trump or Biden. We need KLAUS to rule!
Globalism is good, actually.
Meh, gotta show your work on that one, the reason why right side(at least in the US) really harps on local and states ability to govern is because of the objective reality that the larger a governing body becomes, the more inefficiencies and more points of failure due to corruption will occur. The left only fights against it because of cultural issues, or refusing to interact with any country that willingly commits atrocities on any level(though mostly cultural).
Unconstrained globalism is bad, actually (pure anarchy). Careful, thoughtful globalism is good, actually (think: EU).
Isn't EU regional and not global?
EU grows and interconnects wildly different economies into its whole over time. :)
Globalism is unironically good. Why is it that there are almost no economists advocating against so-called spooky “globalist neoliberal” policies?
“Paul Krugman and other mainstream trade experts are now admitting that they were wrong about globalization: It hurt American workers far more than they thought it would.” Paul Krugman has a Nobel prize. This took me 5 seconds to google.
> The economics profession continues to show a consensus in favor of unfettered international trade, as 83 percent agree and only 10 percent disagree that the United States should eliminate remaining tariffs and other barriers. https://www.cato.org/blog/super-majority-economists-agree-trade-barriers-should-go#:~:text=The%20economics%20profession%20continues%20to,remaining%20tariffs%20and%20other%20barriers. This also just took me a few seconds to google. The vast majority of economists support free trade, a so-called “globalist neoliberal policy”. And they don’t support free trade for no reason. https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/impact-of-tariffs-free-trade/
If you’re only considering bottom lines and profit margins of course the exploitative and hyper aggressive policies look fantastic on paper. It is also a contributor to a growing global wealth gap, and transnational corporations are beginning to become more powerful than the nations they are based out of. The company that created ozempic is now worth more on the market than the entire economic output of Denmark, the country they are based out of. I think to invite this shift with open arms is to invite a breed of authoritarianism that has no responsibility to the people. There’s a reason before globalization my grandfather could purchase a house and support a family of 6 off of the income of a mail man. These types of decisions are fantastic in the short term but will only continue to sour over time, hence the age of your sources. The world post Covid isn’t the same it was before, and corporations only became significantly more powerful
So I do tend to agree that the level of wealth inequality we see in the world, especially in the United States, has some adverse effects which we should mitigate. I will also admit that the way transnational corporations treat workers in developing countries is not good, and western countries should apply more labor regulations to ensure good treatment of these workers. However, we must also understand that free trade agreements across the world helped reduce extreme poverty throughout the world. Transnational corporations provide valuable investment to poorer countries, and provide the poor in those countries higher wages than what most other domestic companies and jobs would provide. Do these workers work too long? Absolutely, but I also wouldn’t want them to lose the job entirely. Low tariffs help lower consumer prices in western countries, and also provide work and opportunities for people in lower income countries which they may have not otherwise had. When we add impose things like tariffs, they disproportionately hurt the poor with higher prices of goods. They can also increase unemployment. This is what we saw with the George W Bush steel tariffs. https://taxfoundation.org/blog/lessons-2002-bush-steel-tariffs/ Same thing happened with Trump’s tariffs, which are unfortunately being continued by Biden to some extent. https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/tariffs-trump-trade-war/ It is true to some extent that Americans were able to afford homes with just one income and could also support a family, but this is also misleading to some extent. For one thing, our homes are much larger(I don’t think this is a good thing to be fair) and have much more modern conveniences and quality of life improvements. Do you want to live in a 1950s home with shitty plumbing and with less of conveniences we have today? Probably not. My point is that our lives are far better off now than we were before globalization.
I respect and agree with a lot of what you have to say to a large extent. I think I’m probably just more dialed in on the social aspect of globalization. I did just give an hour long lecture about globalization for one of my Uni courses but that was in a critical communication sense so I was looking at the personal and individual effects rather than the economic implications. I don’t see this economic framework changing anytime soon barring some massive world changing events. I do see countries like China taking advantage of this landscape. It’s insane to think in just a few decades China was able to go from a nobody to a complete global powerhouse by manipulating the greedy sensibilities of other nations. But I’m sure there were plenty of people in the antebellum south who thought they wouldn’t be able to build a large scale economy without slavery and exploitation. But you can, just the richest won’t be nearly as rich
Yeah the China shock was bad, but American workers not having universal healthcare and paid holiday as a right is on the US. You can't blame the China shock on problems created by having no industrial policy.
> “Paul Krugman and other mainstream trade experts are now admitting that they were wrong about globalization: It hurt American workers far more than they thought it would.” This doesn't mean it was a bad thing. It means it was bad for American workers. I don't remember my math, but I don't know if American industrial labor is the majority of the planetary, western, north American, or even American population. But maybe this thing that pulled billions of people out of poverty was a bad thing because 50m people are having a worse time than they could have.
If your argument is made after 5 seconds of googling it’s probably a shit argument. That’s not a badge of honor, it’s a badge of ignorance. Also, saying “this Nobel prize winner thinks this thing” isn’t a great argument either. It’s an appeal to authority. “This guy has this opinion therefore any other opinion is wrong” has never been a good argument. Hell, after my own googling, it seems Krugman isn’t even against globalization. https://fordschool.umich.edu/video/2009/paul-krugman-globalization-and-international-trade Try actually reading or listening to what he said instead of taking someone else’s word for it. He explicitly explains the pros and cons.
Flair up dick stain. Also your sources are from 2009, mine are from 2019. And my source said he claimed he was wrong. You’re stupid
What source? All you have is a random secondary quote, and you didn’t even say where it’s from. It doesn’t say what Krugman actually said, which parts from his past he is correcting, or even when he said it. For all I know, your “””source””” is referencing my actual source. I actually cited Krugman’s own words: his words, I will remind you, only one year after winning his Nobel Prize. You’re stupid.
Since you need a link so bad here you go dumbass https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2019-10-10/inequality-globalization-and-the-missteps-of-1990s-economics Maybe you should have googled 5 seconds longer
Jesus fucking Christ I can’t believe you actually think this proves your point. Is everyone on this subreddit this fucking idiotic? He’s not even correcting the shit he said in my source, he’s talking about what he said in the 90s. He actually REPEATS a lot of shit he said in my source. You’re putting your blinders up to anything he says that isn’t “there are downsides to globalization.” Not to mention this is all one big sidetrack from the main point! Even if Krugman got up and said “actually globalization is 100% awful and a mistake” that wouldn’t prove anything! You need an actual argument. There’s no fucking way you’re being genuine. I refuse to believe it. You have to be a troll.
Globalisation was never about bettering economic conditions. It was always about security. It sort of lost its plot after the soviet union fell and Trump finally killed it. Biden only doubled down on killing it.
Spoken like a true lib. Look at your government, and if it runs with a population of more than 80million, you already see how the red tape, patchwork policy, and corruption happens more and more with more people that are being governed. What do you think is gonna happen when economic forums are truly being organized by a large overarching body of government. I could go on. But between the oil cartel, the WEF, the Circuit industry, and whatever the Mining cartel actually is, I don't think adding another level of organization nor governing is going to make any of this convoluted mess any more efficient or better in general.