I'm sorry but I don't think the 80s are really something that can be explained to someone that didn't live through them, which I assume you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't be asking for clarification on Reaganomics.
I loved the 80s so much more than the 70s, so I'm not sure where you are coming from.
EDIT: I did remove an insult from an earlier draft of an earlier comment that you were probably a kid (as most people here are) that didn't remember the 80s. Since you are apparently not, my question still stands. (I don't have a pin-up of Margaret Thatcher any more, though...)
Not sure what's expected here. I mean, this is hardly the format for 20 page dissertations on lived history. I'm guessing these downvotes are coming from folks that are missing context because they're in their 20's and don't actually know anything about Reaganomics, what was proposed vs what the actual observed outcomes were, etc.
Rolling out "grandma" as a reason to not do N is a tired chestnut that is growing less relevant with every passing day. It's ageist. It also ignores the fact that all of the people you're casually dismissing lived through the creation of the web and remember a time when going to someone's web server to view their particular content was the norm. You also appear to overlook the utility of post-it notes in your claim that coaching and repetition are a required ingredient for success.
My dude. Most of those people who grew up during the rise of the internet did not experience it. The time when "going to someone's web server was the norm" was outside their lived experience. Your average sixty-year-old probably got a computer when they were forty (because that would be 1998) and what they did with it was generally minimal, modulo company intranets and the like. Of course there are fantastic technologists of that age and I've been privileged to work with some--but they're neither the mean nor the median. Grandma or Grandpa get less relevant as demographics change. But it's still a pretty huge obstacle to doing anything. That'll get worse, too, given the upward collection of wealth.
But here's the other problem: it's changed on the bottom end, too. If you're between about 25 and 50 right now and are nontechnical, you might have gotten deep enough into the internet at a formative period to not feel weird about having to deal with a decentralized web. (I am one of those people, I stress.) But that window? it's smaller than you think!
O RLY. So you claim your average sixty year old with (in your example) 20 years of experience owning a personal computer, is somehow so technologically illiterate as to be unable to utilize browser bookmarks, desktop links, or write down a URL on a post-it note? Alternately, are we pretending that smartphones aren't utterly pervasive in all demographics, including people's grandparents? I mean, yeah, if you absolutely had to you could probably cruise the local K&R cafeteria for the odd outlier who is totally technologically illiterate, but that group is also unable to utilize social media to any extent either and so aren't particularly germane to the conversation. So no, outside of the minds of a handful of programmers, there is no real obstacle.
Quick question: in this hypothetical where China presents an existential threat to the US, what happens to the Chinese economy when they invade the largest consumer of their domestically produced goods and services?
Which countries in Europe would still buy Chinese goods if China were at war with the US?
Maybe it's my memories of being taught about World War 1 and 2 speaking, but it seems more likely Europe would side with the US than China, and kinda unlikely they'd let both parties import goods as they please.
The chances of it remaining an 'isolated' war where no one else gets involved would be low enough than action would probably cost China most of the European market along with the likes of Canada/Australia/etc.
Well, the isolation assumption is a pretty weak one, but taking it, if China won, then why wouldn't Europe want to buy from them? Economics always beats hard feelings.
If China won would assume Europe would stay out of the conflict while the US and China fought each other. A fight with China as the enemy would probably end up dragging in basically the entire 'Western' world.
Of course, it's all pretty insane to speculate about, since:
A: Most countries now seem like they're trying to avoid actual wars as much as possible, and most remaining issues seem to be sparked off more by extremist nutcases/cults than a country's army trying to invade or fight off another.
B: The US, most of Europe, China, etc have nuclear weapons, so any actual war between any of them would probably end like everyone's worst fears about the Cold War made reality. Don't think there'd be much trade or economics left after that.
The US never has to surrender - they simply say we will use our nuclear weapons. These wars have no victor hence these wars have been replaced by proxy wars in various locations.
That's why Russia now focuses solely on disrupting elections and cyber warfare-only from within can these nations be affected and weakened.
>> I'm a progressive, but there is no peace without being ready for war. I just hope we don't find out too late, and China has much better smart weaponry
> Quick question: in this hypothetical where China presents an existential threat to the US, what happens to the Chinese economy when they invade the largest consumer of their domestically produced goods and services?
WWII was not bad for the US economy. The car plants were converted to build tanks and airplanes, then they were converted back when the war was over.
I don't think China poses an existential military threat to the US itself in the medium term, but it does pose one to Taiwan and potentially some other countries in the region. Unfortunately, the main thing that contains that threat and maintains peace is US military superiority.
Mandatory voting? How would you propose enforcing it? How does Australia enforce it?
I'm not necessarily against mandatory voting, but it would be very hard to convince the American public that mandatory voting is a good idea when a huge part of the population would see that as an attack on their freedom to not vote.
This doesn't even begin to discuss the situations where voting only occurs on a Tuesday (aside from mail-ins) and some people can't take that time off work. There would have to be some clause to force employers to let employees go vote, at a loss of money somewhere. Such a clause would lead to more resistance.
Again, I'm not personally against it, but it's not so simple as "make it mandatory."
> Mandatory voting? How would you propose enforcing it?
With a financial penalty if you don't submit a ballot. The simplest method would probably be a per-election tax credit.
> I'm not necessarily against mandatory voting, but it would be very hard to convince the American public that mandatory voting is a good idea when a huge part of the population would see that as an attack on their freedom to not vote.
Most mandatory voting regimes require submitting a ballot, but they tend to accept explicit abstention (usually, just by submitting a blank ballot.)
> This doesn't even begin to discuss the situations where voting only occurs on a Tuesday (aside from mail-ins) and some people can't take that time off work. There would have to be some clause to force employers to let employees go vote, at a loss of money somewhere.
Almost every state already does that, and the exceptions (IIRC) have long early voting periods and/or all mail-in elections which avoid the Tuesday-only problem. So that's not really a problem.
How would you deal with malicious voters, who now surely would be so pissed they would vote for a bad candidate, or put in ballots wrapped in dog shit?
Jury duty, which is so routinely avoided/worked around that it is a joke?
Tax returns, which are only done at the threat of prison? And mostly in the US because other countries have figured out a way to do it directly as long as you have a job?
I have voted in every election that I was elegible to, but this time I have lost every faith in the system and just want to some way to say to say enough is enough, you have lied to be too many times.
But no, you want me to continue the charade that democracy, without the possibility to hold the politicians responsible for their lies is worth anything at all.
I want them all to burn in hell. Where in your system do I vote in farvour of that?
> Where in your system do I vote in farvour of that?
Submit an empty ballot, or write "burn in hell" on it. It won't make a difference to how your vote is counted, but sitting at home and not voting will make just as little of a difference.
I don't see how not voting is "keeping politicians accountable". Vote third party (in Australia we have many third parties and independents, though unfortunately because we use instant-runoff preferential voting we still have two very large primary parties).
How is that even a problem if the financial penalty for not voting is implemented by way of a per-election tax credit for voting?
> How would you deal with malicious voters, who now surely would be so pissed they would vote for a bad candidate
A large minority of voters do that in the best case now. I'm not really convinced that anger at being offered a financial incentive to turn in a ballot is going to motivate people to be more effective wat voting for bad candidates than those who are ideologically motivated that way now.
Mandatory voting exists in many countries, including Australia (since 1918). As an Australian, I've never heard of anyone submitting a ballot wrapped in dog shit. Culturally, voting is seen as just something that you go and do every couple of years, and so most people aren't really as pissed off as you assume people might be.
Unregistered voters exist obviously, but current statistics estimate that only a very small percentage of the population is actually unregistered (and unregistered voters aren't fined as far as I know).
> If you want people to vote make it mandatory like Australia.
Empirically, a more proportional election system not only improves satisfaction with government, but also participation in voting.
People not voting should be a signal that there is something wrong with the voting system’s fitness for purpose. Mandatory voting may treat the symptom, but ignores the underlying problem.
Mandatory voting solves the problem that "party X won because they convinced more people to leave their house and vote". It also immediately solves all of the voting discrimination problems you see in the US, as well as making it practically necessary for voting to occur on days that people actually have time to vote (as well as provide more tools to make early voting easier).
So while I agree that apathy and lack of satisfaction are some of the reasons why people are not voting (and are serious problems that need to be addressed), there are other problems that mandatory voting can help resolve. And ultimately the friction to convincing people of your argument is much smaller -- because now it is just a political problem of convincing the public, rather than a practical problem of getting some folks to take time off work to vote.
Letting "the market" decide what is and isn't valuable in terms of human knowledge seems dubious at best. We are talking about a system that prioritizes extraction of non-renewable resources to produce dumb shit like bluetooth toothbrushes.
"Value" is subjective - you or I might value a type of knowledge differently from the way the market does.
However, to the extent that a student is pursuing an education as a means to achieve employment and income, the value of a piece of knowledge to the student _is_ its value to the market.
That an education should be pursued primarily or solely as a means to achieve employment is even more dubious. Unless, of course, you're trying to claim that having a highly educated populace isn't, in and of itself, a Social Good?
I'm not claiming that, or making any value proposition at all.
I'm saying IF your main or only goal is career advancement, THEN the value of a college education to you is the same as the value of that education to the market.
If you have other goals then by all means major in Theater, Filipino Literature, Marine Biology, or whatever major best suits your goals.
The GP's point, in the post you replied to above, is that you should not expect, having done that, to be able to easily repay a $100k loan.
Maybe your point is that we should, as a society, revise our scheme for funding people's educations, so that the pursuit of degrees in less lucrative fields is not such a burden. And if so, maybe you're right.
The fact is, though, a lot of college students have no clear goals. Maybe they want a job after they get out but don't know what. Or maybe their parents just expect them to get a degree but haven't given them much guidance in choosing a major. If such a student chooses "Communications" or English Lit just because it seems easier or somewhat more interesting than a more technical field, and they just have vague expectations of being better able to find employment having finished their degree, I don't think it qualifies as much of a social good for the student to get that education. I certainly don't want to pay for it in my tax dollars.
There have been spontaneous demonstrations among the workers voicing their joy and gratitude at our happy new way of life. /s It seems pretty naive to assume that a handful of individuals being paid a fraction of the going rate for western labor is going to have a meaningful impact on the country's economy or lead to sweeping social changes.
All of Asia was dragged out of poverty - over time - by doing stuff cheaper. China is a world power not from communism or protectionism or by some grand gesture. They took awful jobs for a tiny amount of pay (by western standards) and eeked their way up the GDP ladder.
It is a the worst kind of white, privileged attitude that taking a higher paid job won't improve things for the locals.
But lets give this a fair airing. Name a country that had a GDP increase in any other way. I'll wait.
Scandinavia and the entire Soviet Union spring to mind instantly. There's nothing particularly white or privileged about healthy skepticism of any system that hinges on labor arbitrage to accomplish it's goals. Go meditate on the econ definition of the word "exploitation" until enlightenment is achieved. Note, if you're planning on trying to muster McCarthyite arguments at this point you're going to have to overcome the fact that the first manmade object and the first person in space were both put there by communists.
Sure, but the argument is specious for all of the same reasons that philanthropy has a track record of exacerbating the social problems it intended to solve.
Agreed, that is a particularly offensive line of bullshit. Labor arbitrage is a thing, sure, but it takes a special flavor of insipid shithead to try to unfurl that kind of tortured logic to handwave past the obvious exploitation taking place.
How is it exploitation? These are some of the best jobs available to people coming from the slums.
The real reason that they don't pay more is of course: They don't have to. That's not what the white media people (desperate for yet another "exploitation" story) want to hear though, so you gotta make up some "social" reason.
If these people were paid more, the whole business would just move to the next cheapest place, possibly in another country. That's the peril of unskilled labor everywhere. You can't fix it by fiat.
>That's the peril of unskilled labor everywhere. You can't fix it by fiat.
Actually you can. Forbid companies to outsource labor outside their target market country, or impose heavy tariffs, and voila.
That will mean less cheap gadgets in said market country (e.g. US), but more actual jobs, and a healthier middle class (and thus economy), and thus better access to necessities.
This will also force third world countries to actually become competitive in quality and delivery, not just throw sweatshop-like labor (including from children and in some cases, slaves) and cheaper dangerous working conditions at the problem.
There is an overwhelming consensus among people who study the subject that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Even interventionist economists like Paul Krugman strongly agree, and they have tried to explain why free trade is a good thing to an ignorant public. It is shameful that so many people feel obligated to opine strongly on a subject which they don't understand, causing bad policies to be enacted.
Protectionism makes society worse off. The policy you are proposing would make the world poorer.
>There is an overwhelming consensus among people who study the subject that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare
Yes, establishment economists all agree on establishment practices are good and want more of them. News at 11.
It's not like economics is a science the way physics or chemistry are.
I think everyone agrees that outsourcing work to third world economies creates immense wealth in first world economies. We also know that burning fossil fuels is the cheapest way to make useful heat. That doesn't mean it doesn't have a lot of negative unintended consequences.
> I think everyone agrees that outsourcing work to third world economies creates immense wealth in first world economies.
It also creates wealth in those third world economies. In fact, they benefit the most.
> We also know that burning fossil fuels is the cheapest way to make useful heat. That doesn't mean it doesn't have a lot of negative unintended consequences.
Can you explain why you think this comparison is relevant?
Hollowing out the lower/middle class in those first world economies and forcing people into social welfare programs is a big unintended consequence here.
To be fair, it almost entirely transfers wealth to the extremely well off by any standards first world upper class, everything else is a rounding error. Outsourcing is colonialism by another name.
> To be fair, it almost entirely transfers wealth to the extremely well off
Wrong. Free trade benefits the poor the most. It is responsible for massive reductions in poverty at the global level, and is critical to the economic growth of developing countries. Trade barriers (particularly in agriculture) are a major source of harm to the world's poor:
Look, there's really no reason to call me closed-minded, we can both surely cite a lot of reputable sources that agree with our position, mine being that outsourcing causes a lot of problems and yours that outsourcing is a net positive on global gdp and increases incomes globally. I think we're both right! But what you may not be considering is - what do you think would happen if 8 billion people had a first-world carbon footprint? So what's the rush to get new labor pools into the global economy? Call me cynical but I think it is almost completely self interest on the part of the first world economies with only lip service paid to the well being of the poor Laotians.
I asked what you meant by colonialism, so enlighten me. Explain why you think outsourcing is "colonialism".
> But what you may not be considering is - what do you think would happen if 8 billion people had a first-world carbon footprint?
That's a discussion for another day. But you would have to reframe your argument as "Free trade is bad because the world's poor escaping poverty would be a bad thing for the environment."
> So what's the rush to get new labor pools into the global economy?
Simply put, extreme poverty.
> Call me cynical but I think it is almost completely self interest on the part of the first world economies with only lip service paid to the well being of the poor Laotians.
Of course it's self-interest. That's how economies work. Whether it's self-interest or not doesn't determine whether it's good or bad.
My entire argument is "there are a lot of unintended consequences" - naming an example is salient. I noticed that you haven't refuted any of my points so I'll assume that you are aware that global trade is worse for the environment and bad for the working class in the countries exporting their labor pool, but the benefits are so good for you that you will continue to argue in its favor. That's fine. We will clearly choose to look for different policies from our leadership.
As I've said elsewhere, the solution to pollution is more economic development, not less. This becomes even truer once demographic transition effects (like declining birth rates) start to kick in.
> and bad for the working class in the countries exporting their labor pool
Can you not read? The poor in exporting countries benefit the most from free trade. That was the main point I addressed in my comments, and the fact that you pretend it never happened makes it clear you're not arguing in good faith.
> We will clearly choose to look for different policies from our leadership.
You'll be making the whole world poorer with your harmful policy. And it's all due to an ignorance of the subject, an unwillingness to examine the evidence, and a resistance to changing your mind in the face of it. Shame.
That's not true, as I've already pointed out in my comments. The fact that you keep covering your ears and pretending this is not the case doesn't change reality.
All rich countries, except a few oil producers, have become rich by sweatshop-like labor.
It's the one way that actually works. By banning it, you are not forcing third world countries to find some other way, you are forcing them to remain in poverty.
>All rich countries, except a few oil producers, have become rich by sweatshop-like labor. It's the one way that actually works. By banning it, you are not forcing third world countries to find some other way, you are forcing them to remain in poverty.
Rich countries have also used feudal ownership, slave labor, and colonies. And all allowed child labor. Maybe we should allow those too?
The "way that it actually works" depends on what people tolerate and find acceptable. There's nothing written in stone, societies can drive their fate, not the other way around.
Why would "forc[ing] third world countries to actually become competitive" happen at all, if it had not happened before outsourcing was a thing? I would think these workers would just go back to "earning around $2 a day, or less, in the so-called informal economy of odd - or dangerous - jobs." If you think they are acceptable collateral, at least say it in as many words. If that's not it, please explain.
> Forbid companies to outsource labor outside their target market country, or impose heavy tariffs, and voila.
This is nonsense economics, straight out of Donald Trumps playbook.
It hurts everyone involved in the process. If unskilled labor becomes too expensive, it's simply eliminated. Business looks elsewhere. This hurts the people in the rich country less, there are more opportunities for people there. The people in the poorer countries stay poor, because they don't get the kind of foreign capital they need to advance. You know, the kind of money that buys things on the global market, the kind of money that the US just gets to print.
> That will mean less cheap gadgets in said market country (e.g. US), but more actual jobs, and a healthier middle class (and thus economy), and thus better access to necessities.
Not just "cheap gadgets" will be more expensive, everything will be, because the whole economy is intertwined in subtle ways. This makes everyone poorer, but it especially hurts those people that can afford the least. They'll be able to afford even less. You're not helping a middle class by raising prices on low-end jobs. Those jobs will disappear when they become too expensive. They can not become middle-class jobs by fiat.
> This will also force third world countries to actually become competitive in quality and delivery, not just throw sweatshop-like labor (including from children and in some cases, slaves) and cheaper dangerous working conditions at the problem.
If you have sweatshop-like conditions, which I don't think is the case here, then that is still a better alternative than whatever other jobs these people could've had instead - otherwise they would do those. Remember, the government can't just decide everyone gets to have a good job. Isolating these third world countries from the global market doesn't help them become more competitive. It's not like it hasn't been tried, mind you.
>This is nonsense economics, straight out of Donald Trumps playbook.
That's a facile response. The truth is that tariffs and similar restrictions have been used by every major economic power on its way to the top, the US perhaps more than others:
"Britain was the first country to successfully use a large-scale infant industry promotion strategy. However, its most ardent user was the U.S.; the economic historian Paul Bairoch once called it "the homeland and bastion of modern protectionism" (Economics and World History: Myths and Paradoxes, Bairoch)." [1]
Of course once they got there, they suddenly find protectionism "not working" anymore, and other countries shouldn't use it -- like someone who got to the top kicks out the ladder he used lest others use it too.
In other words, the interests of the 10% are taken as economic gospel (after all economists always belong to the 10% and cater to that crowd, especially anybody who's let anywhere near policy makers and top universities) -- and let the middle class and the bottom 30% be damned.
>Not just "cheap gadgets" will be more expensive, everything will be, because the whole economy is intertwined in subtle ways. This makes everyone poorer, but it especially hurts those people that can afford the least.
Everyone needs to be "poorer" when it comes to affording consumerism anyway (from smartphones to the tons of clothes [2]), and "richer" in affording rent, healthcare, education, job, and other such necessities, that is, the opposite of the trends for the last 30+ years.
>If you have sweatshop-like conditions, which I don't think is the case here, then that is still a better alternative than whatever other jobs these people could've had instead - otherwise they would do those.
The same could be said for child labor (better than the kids/families starving), and yet we outlawed that (at least in theory).
> The truth is that tariffs and similar restrictions have been used by every major economic power
...because it's politically expedient, not because it makes economic sense.
> after all economists always belong to the 10% and cater to that crowd
Oh, 10%. Why not 5% or 15%? What happened to the 1%? How do you even know that is true? I mean, you don't, but throwing around percentages and ascribing motivations to that is somewhat hard to falsify.
Seriously, let's say I'm an economist and belong to "the 10%". Why should I cater to them? Why not cater to the 1%? Why not cater to the 90%? What's so great about the 10%?
> ...let the middle class and the bottom 30% be damned.
So, the middle class starts at 90% and goes down to 30%, therefore they make up 60%. None of them are economists and no economist is catering to their interests either. Just to get a broad picture here.
> Everyone needs to be "poorer" when it comes to affording consumerism anyway (from smartphones to the tons of clothes [2]), and "richer" in affording rent, healthcare, education, job, and other such necessities, that is, the opposite of the trends for the last 30+ years.
Got it, poor people shouldn't be able to afford smartphones and tons of clothes. But how exactly does protectionism help them afford these other things you mention? Presumably these people are going to all have jobs making smartphones and sewing clothes (which are now so expensive they themselves cannot afford them). But why would their wages be higher? Remember, as prices go up, demand goes down. Without demand, jobs get eliminated.
> The same could be said for child labor (better than the kids/families starving), and yet we outlawed that (at least in theory).
Child labor becomes illegal only as soon as that is feasible, it requires a certain amount of economic development. Indeed, it is better for a child to work than starve, don't you think? Child labor (depending on how you define it) is still par for the course in underdeveloped countries, even when it may not always be legal.
History isn't done yet. Your rosy prognosis appears to ignore current widespread ecosystem collapse and mass extinction, growing geopolitical instability, and the looming possibility of the biosphere becoming incompatible with human civilization as it is currently implemented.
Humanity is indeed driving towards a cliff and the current political and economic system globally is not sustainable, you'll have no argument there. Where we differ is that I see a thread throughout history, especially recently, that we tend to invent our way to solutions. History is indeed not done yet, so how about neither of us call the game just yet?
For me, I try to educate myself and continue to open my heart and mind to the suffering and problems of the world. This is painful and only recommended in small doses. I see a lot of suffering, and not just human suffering, and I am a white male human in Colorado, so I probably don't see the majority of suffering due to my privileges and luxurious life. The only other option is to turn away from it all, and I don't want to. I don't want to be part of the problem and live with so much blood on my hands. I try to cope with it by waking up each day and trying to make a positive difference in any small way that I can. Learning, sharing what I learn, talking with others, learning the problems of others, volunteering social services, voting, and brainstorming economic, social and political solutions. I find happiness daily in the beauty of the sky or animals or plants. This is truly an incredible world and I must be blessed to have had the chance to experience it, even if things are not going so great for the community of Earth.
As far as I'm aware tourism is not a short term thing there will always be tourists coming and leaving this is an constant revenue steam in its own right.
>this is an constant revenue steam in its own right.
Indeed. Amsterdam, for example, is enriched by its diverse trinket shops selling "XXX" poof ball hats and crass t-shirts, and the options for stale pizza, cold waffles and Nutella crepes have never been so plentiful.
He means that locals will be kicked out from their homes - or if they are luckier/smarter - will be living as animals in a zoo.
Mass tourism is dystopic. Living in a touristic area is like living in Disneyland: everything is fake. Did you ever wonder why 'experienced' tourists (we like to call ourselves travellers) don't like touristic areas?
I am saying that using economic activity to gauge positive impact on society is utterly misguided. Consider: we are currently living in an age of robust economic growth and international trade, historic levels of income inequality, and are in the midst of a global mass extinction event with the very real possibility of climate change rendering human civilization in it's current form impossible.
